Roxy seems to receive these privileges not just from the whites around her but from the narrative itself. When the slaves are being interrogated regarding the stolen money, Roxy is the only one who hasn't been part of the theft. The other three slaves however, who are all black, have each stolen money from their master. This was jarring to me when I first read it, but now I'm beginning to see the irony in Roxy being portrayed as the favorite, and her privileges allowing her to do "wrong" things. Roxy was her master's favorite slave, yet she ends up committing the greatest crime against her master by "stealing" his son and replacing it with another, who is as raucous and pesky as a changeling. Roxy could not have done this if she wasn't white, so is it acceptable to blame her "wrong" actions on the black parts of her?
Tom and Chambers are also an interesting example of the power of race v. situation, a version perhaps of nature v. nurture. Do Tom and Chambers conform to the stereotypes of meek slave and harsh master because of the virtues of their races or because anyone in that situation would become that type of character. If Tom and Chambers had never been switched, would the real Chambers be just as meek as the fake Chambers simply because of the situation? Roxy certainly thinks "Tom's" actions are the result of his black nature, but maybe the master would always be harsh and the slave would always be meek, no matter their race.
Something I though was interesting is the fact that while "Chambers" adopts meekness, he is in many ways portrayed as superior to "Tom", protecting him from fights and being more skilled. I was surprised by this, because I would've expected Twain to portray "Tom" as virtuous in order to show that blacks are just as capable of being responsible and honorable whole people. But he doesn't, in fact "Tom" seems to be one of the most despised characters in the book, I still don't know what to make of it, or what Twain is trying to say.Perhaps he is getting at what you said in your last sentence about how slavery can turn a master harsh and despicable, and a slave meek and submissive, no matter their race.
ReplyDeleteI think this is pretty central, Erin--that Tom and Chambers characters can be seen both/either as produces of heredity (and race?) and of upbringing (and environment), and that the characters themselves, including the narrator, easily switch between both explanations when it suits them. In any case, as with Roxy, the actual nature of nature (of race) is undermined since the proportion of African "blood" in both Roxy and Tom is miniscule, as we are repeatedly reminded.
ReplyDelete