The article by Richard Allen was certainly a refreshing one in comparison to what we have read previously in this class. We have seen how religion was used as a tool to continue to support the system of slavey. We have seen how slaves used their own forms of religion in order to cope with their situation. But this time, religion was actually depicted as an effective tool for challenging the existing inequalities, even if it was somewhat limited.
The whole of Richard Allen’s autobiography is interesting and worth reading, but the beginning is something that sticks out to me; he refers to his master in terms of endearment. Of course, my ancestors had never been enslaved (my Korean ancestors were severely mistreated and forced to work for the Japanese, but it’s nowhere near the same), but to see how he speaks of being enslaved is bizarre because there’s truly no such thing as a good master. There is no way to own a person and be good yourself, and also to, later in life, relinquish those slaves does not make you a good person. Realizing what you’ve done wrong and trying to atone for that does not automatically and without a doubt make you good. It would be interesting to see what this man had done besides force his slaves to buy their own freedom instead of freeing them and fronting the £60 bill himself, as, I would assume, God would have wanted him to. He could have afforded it if he truly saw them as family. I’m sure that being a Quaker probably factored into his sudden turnaround on the idea of owning slaves, but I can’t pretend to pat this old, dead man on the back for what he did to save himself in the eyes of his god.
One of the readings focuses on Peter Williams, a reverend in an episcopal church in New York. He was on a committee that had different opinions when it came to the advancement of black people in his area. Due to this, Bishop Onderdonk, one of his bosses, encourages him to resign for the “peace of the community”. This is one of the classic cases of following your heart because on one hand, you want to be a helping hand within the community to but also know the way it’s being went about is not how you planned it to be and you have your own vision for change, it’s just that no one will listen. Rev. Williams was really trying but I think his fellow committee members saw it and got upset because they wanted to address this project in a conservative way. In his letter, he know the resignation hurt,but he know he did his best to help out his people.
Emancipation day was something I have never heard about before reading chapter 17 of Sernett. In the African Baptist Celebrate Emancipation in New York State it looks at the reverend Nathaniel Paul’s perspective of slavery and the freedom that comes with emancipation day. The enslaved people always believed that someday God would come save them from the horridness that is slavery. Paul writes “It’s visage is satanic, its origin the very offspring of hell, and in all cases its effects are grievous.(Pg. 187)” The emancipation day gave people who were enslaved hope and a chance to finally make it to freedom. It helped strengthen their beliefs that God was looking out for them and their well being.
What I found interesting this week is Richard Allen’s writing. When I think of slavery, I think of gruesomely horrifying conditions and treatments. Allen shined a light that I never knew was present. I understand that each slave experienced a different level of severity, but for Allen to refer to his slave master as a father figure is very intriguing to me. This reading makes we rethink all of the harsh comments I made about Jupiter Hammon. Hammon and Allen were from the same general area; their experiences as slaves were probably similar. Allen’s master proved Hammon’s theory of masters becoming self-aware that they are wrong to be true. I think this is because of geographical location. In the south, this was probably unheard of because the north was so polarized than the south, in terms of slavery. I think that Allen’s master being a Quaker was why he came to his senses. I also feel that this is why most Quakers began to get rid of their slaves. Allen was eye-opening if only we could hear more similar stories.
I am happy to report that tonight, I have walked away from these readings slightly less of a cynic; this is perhaps the most uplifting piece I have read yet. (Fear not, I know that this happy feeling will be crushed next week.) Nathaniel Paul’s address was truly remarkable in my eyes. I think that it is important for me to note here that my personal feelings in regards differ a bit from students of color. Allow me to explain, being white, and also not having been born in the United States, I do not have any personal connections, nor any biological history rooted to the slavery that look place. With this being said, Paul’s address is truly moving. I felt what African Americans must have felt on that day. When the process of slavery was described, it affected me on a very personal level in the fact that I understand the pain of separation. It especially hit hard when Paul alludes that for most slaves, not surviving the trip over would have been an act of mercy. Furthermore, we continue to see a common thread. Slavery is bad in life, but ones freedom will be gained in heaven. I liked how Paul goes beyond just the issue of slavery. He also goes on to address the fundamental issues in the system of the United States, “[we] offer an excuse for the frames of the Constitution.” (pg. 190) He goes to claim the colonial need for independence from Great Britain is what caused the cuse of slavery to exist. That had people had purer intentions, this have been avoided. However at the same time,Paul states that liberation would not have been achieved had history been different. Remember, as we discussed in class, slaves were very much a symbol of wealth. Through the permanent abolition of slavery in New York, slaves were able to claim back their sense of self once more.
The fact that Richard Allen was converted to be a Methodist when he was 17 and stayed devoted shocked me. According to this reading, he seems very adamant that no other section of Christianity is greater than the Methodists. The way that his master treated him was interesting. He seemed to be more of the benevolent kind.
This week’s readings, more than anything, impressed upon me the fact that, when speaking of African-American religions and religious leaders, one can never be too specific. People are not uniform or easily described in broad strokes, and the differences in all four of the primary sources in this week’s reading easily fit that description. While I felt that the words of Richard Allen and Christopher Rush were less spirited, and, for me specifically, harder to follow, it was easy for me to relate to the words of Nathaniel Paul and Peter Williams, who, in my opinion, were more passionate and engaging. However, I try to acknowledge every bias that I might have in life, and having not been raised in a Christian community, I feel that my lack of familiarity with particular positions and traditions in certain Christian denominations might have caused me to get a bit lost in Allen and Rush’s writings. In fact, it was difficult for me to discern why the two denominations felt they had to be separate in the first place. Williams’s circumstance was a great deal more understandable to me, just based on historical context, as was Paul’s message.
However, out of curiosity, I decided to compare the mission statements of both the AME and AMEZ churches. Direct from their websites.
“The Mission of the AME Church is to minister to the social, spiritual, and physical development of all people…The ultimate purposes are…make available God’s biblical principles, spread Christ’s liberating gospel, and provide continuing programs which will enhance the entire social development of all people.”
“The mission of The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church is to increase our love for God and to help meet the needs of humankind by “Loving God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with our entire mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.” Implicit in this statement is the belief that the church should have a positive relationship to humankind horizontally…we actualize this mission by praising God, by being obedient to the demands of the Gospel, by telling the story of God’s gracious acts in creating and redeeming the world, by inviting persons to commit their lives to Jesus Christ, and by serving as ministers of God’s liberating and reconciling grace.”
In my opinion, these mission statements aren’t different at all. This matches the sense I got from the readings, and from Christianity as a whole. The reasons for splits aren’t in the missions or core ideals of the denominations. It’s in the comfort of individual methods of administration. Again, as an outsider looking in, I could have a skewed view of this, but the necessity of differentiating one another seems wholly extraneous, since they both serve to meet the same goals.
By far the most emotional account in this week’s readings was that of Nathaniel Paul. Nathaniel Paul’s account detailed the joy and relief associated with the day the emancipation act went into effect. The sheer, inexpressible emotion behind his words are incredibly thought-provoking because I had never before realized how many ways there are to describe slavery, and yet how completely indescribable it truly is. Throughout the account, Nathaniel Paul gives many descriptions of slavery and its various evils, including one particularly thought-provoking line: “Slavery, with its concomitants and consequences, in the best attire in which it can possibly be presented, is but a hateful monster, the very demon of avarice and oppression, from its first introduction to the present time…” (Sernett 187). Paul goes on to eloquently and thoroughly describe slavery and its process. The entire account is entirely captivating, with declarations such as, “Point me to any section of the earth where slavery, to any considerable extent exists, and I will point you to a people whose morals are corrupted…” (Sernett 188). This account forces readers to think thoroughly about slavery, and realize the truth behind Paul’s words.
Nathaniel Paul goes on to say that slavery cannot be described, saying “Its more than detestable picture has been attempted to be portrayed by the learned, and the wise, but all have fallen short, and acknowledged their inadequacy to the task, and have been compelled to submit, by merely giving an imperfect shadow of its reality.” (Sernett 188). However, shortly after this statement Paul goes on to perhaps the most heartfelt lines of the entire chapter, “Tell me, ye mighty waters, why did ye sustain the ponderous load of misery? Or speak, ye winds, and say why it was that ye executed your office to waft them onward to the still more dismal state; and ye proud waves, why did you refuse to lend your aid and to have overwhelmed them with your billows?” (Sernett 190). These lines spoke to me the most because of the pain contained within them. These are words of heartfelt despair, of true and utter feeling, and they open one’s eyes more than anything else in the chapter to the true horror of slavery.
The one thing that stuck out to me about Richard Allen was the fact that the white people were so nice to him. We can see a clear difference between the treatment of him in this chapter, and the treatment of the black people in the previous chapters. This makes me question why they are so nice him. Is it because this is set in the North, or because he is a preacher that they believe is blessed by God? Maybe he just doesn’t include the bad interactions because he’s biased, seeing as how he thinks his master is so great. I can see the latter being a big part of this writing, because at one point he praises his master for giving him his freedom, while completely ignoring the fact that his master makes him pay for his freedom.
Despite this first reading, I thought the rest of the readings were pretty dry and formulaic.
