Prudent Consumption: The Enlightenment Promotes Informed Ethical Eating

(artist rendition of Franklin with his bread loaves and future wife)

Introduction

In many of the Enlightenment texts we have read, food appears as a motif. Food becomes a springboard for discussing serious enlightenment issues, such as slavery and religion. One theme that emerges is using food to show the true cost of luxury, and thus advocating a more frugal lifestyle. Enlightenment authors urge their readers to pursue frugality as the ethical choice because of the public benefit of helping others, financial implications, and in light of its human labor cost.

Public Benefit

The public, non-tangible benefits of consuming frugally are depicted in Robinson Crusoe[1] and The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin[2]. Defoe highlights the benefit for the public of considering deeply everything he or she is to eat, desert island or not. The iconic bread scene from Benjamin Franklin shows how essential it is to give to others if your own immediate needs have been met.

Robinson Crusoe eats meat for the purpose of survival, not for opulent feasts. In Crusoe’s first encounter with a goat, he kills the goat so that he may survive when the rations from the ship run out. He eventually also kills its child, but not before attempting first to feed it. However, he does not disregard the loss of life. “I killed a She-Goat which had a little Kid by her which she gave Suck to, which griev’d me heartily” (Defoe 98). By admitting that killing the animal saddened him, he shows that the animal itself is to be considered when making food choices, and should be eaten out of need rather than want. Furthermore, Crusoe does not gorge himself on the animal, he gingerly saves the meat eating it sparingly. In Alex Tapper’s blog post “On Prolepsis, Robinson Crusoe”[3], Alex emphasizes that by making the plot of Robinson Crusoe transparent, the reader is able to focus on the importance of details, such as Crusoe’s internal struggles within the text. Alex states “Prolepsis is one mechanism working in the novel that allows for a more overt focus on these hidden or subdued topics.” In this context the goat detail can be easily focused upon as evidence of Crusoe’s psychological struggles on the Island. He is very cognizant of the implications his consumption of even one animal has. Furthermore, this small passage can serve an important purpose for the reader within the Enlightenment era, in encouraging him or her to consider his or her own food indulgences.

In The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin a vivid passage depicts Franklin’s arrival in the city that would define the course of his life -- Philadelphia. He was exhausted and ravenous, and thus bought bread immediately after disembarking. He is surprised to receive three rolls of bread for a low price. He eats his fill as he strolls the streets and although he has very little money he “gave the other two (rolls) to a Woman and her Child that came down the River in the Boat with us and were waiting to go farther.” (Franklin 76). Franklin could have easily kept the bread for himself, as he has no idea where his next meal or shilling would come from. However, he does not choose to have the luxury of knowing he has the bread, instead he makes an ethical choice and gives the bread to the people who need it most. Clearly Franklin is showing that one should only take what he or she needs. In this instance, Franklin uses food to demonstrate helping others is far more important than gluttonous behavior. Furthermore, the incident shows food can be a means of obtaining satisfaction from helping others. In the work "Franklin and the Revolutionary Body.”[4] Erkkila argues that the bread anecdote is an example of what Franklin carefully wishes to convey to his audience “…through rigorous regimes of industry, culture, temperance, and frugality, Franklin seeks to present himself as a model body of the rising middle class and the rising glory of America” (Erkkila 724). Erikkila’s piece in some ways functions as a critique, however I do not imagine Franklin would dislike these themes – they seem to be at the heart of his novel. In his blog “Ben Doesn’t rest in peace”[5] Jess discusses Franklin’s belief in helping others through “reciprocal altruism” or in layman’s terms the idea that if you help someone, including in business, someday when you need it they will help you in return, and as Jess states: “allowing everyone to prosper”. Jess points out that our current financial market is anything but honest or altruistic. Jess states, “He would like to think that the good character one demonstrates to his neighbor should encourage his neighbor to emulate that same dedication to reciprocal altruism.” Although bread is a humble offering, I believe Franklin does fulfill this ideal in this instance, and who is to say the woman and child did not help someone else they perceived could use it?

Financial – Personal Savings and Ease of Lifestyle

Enlightenment thinkers also demonstrated that if one does not want to consider the altruistic benefits of eating simply, one should consider the benefits financially. In Gulliver’s Travels[6], the amount of food an average person should consume is an issue that can be raised satirically – by considering it through the perspective of much smaller creatures. Franklin demonstrates in his autobiography the money he was able to save as a result of his vegetarian lifestyle. Furthermore, Franklin shows how money can be lost in the pursuit of consuming alcohol. I would argue, not only does he show the money lost in the present, he also depicts how long term luxurious habits can stall career progress.

In Lilliput, Gulliver’s food habits are depicted as awe inspiring to the Lilliputians. His appetite is depicted as absurd, requiring daily feasts, at one moment legitimate concerns are raised that feeding Gulliver may cause a famine in Lilliput. Simply for his needs the Emperor enlists all the villages to create a daily commission for him -- “…the said Man-Mountain shall have a daily Allowance of Meat and Drink sufficient for the Support of 1,728 of our Subjects” (Swift 38). Gulliver never concerns himself with the hundreds of Lilliputians who work around the clock to feed him, or considers that perhaps he should search for his own food. If no other food was to be found, he could have been more sensitive to the financial implications for Lilliput by not requesting meat and alcohol, difficult and expensive dishes to produce, on a daily basis. He does not consider the financial repercussions of his actions. Thus Swift asks his reader to consider the concept of food on a microscopic level.

Earlier in his autobiography, Franklin shows how his father, who advocated eating simply rather than delicately, influenced his progressive food choices. He encouraged young Franklin to disregard frivolous attachments to food as a social construct. This made Benjamin more flexible in regards to travel and daily living. This passage shows that being prudent in regards to food, rather than indulging every whim, results in a much easier lifestyle to maintain.

“By this means he turned out Attention to what was good, just, and prudent in the Conduct of Life; and little or no Notice was even taken to what related to the Victuals on the table, whether it was well or ill drest, in or out of season, of good or bad flavour, preferable or inferior to this thing or the other thing of the kind.” (Franklin 55).

In this passage Franklin expressly argues that moral conduct and one’s attitude toward food are inextricably linked. This is not simply Franklin’s opinion – it’s how he was raised. By describing at length what facets of food he pays no regard to, Franklin wittily constructs what others do, and shows how frivolous such considerations are.

On multiple occasions in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin Franklin shows how eating frugally can benefit the body as well as the pocketbook. Franklin describes his first foray into vegetarianism, as a young man. He explains that by preparing simple dishes, he was able to save half the money he would normally spend on board and spend it instead on books. Franklin explains that the light non-alcoholic vegetarian diet benefited him intellectually as well. “I made the greater Progress from the Clearness of Head and quicker Apprehension which usually attend Temperance in Eating and Drinking.” (Franklin 63). Franklin shows that making prudent food choices helped him to become successful, because of his clear mind and the extra funds to buy books. Later in the text, Franklin illustrates how consuming beer is detrimental in the workplace. The workers attempt to argue strong beer makes them more physically capable, Franklin humourously rationalizes there is not enough Barley dissolved in the beer to serve a purpose in terms of energy. Franklin also points out the amount of money the workers spend on beer, he states “… thus these poor Devils keep themselves always under”. (Franklin 100). Franklin illustrates how irrational and wasteful consuming alcohol can be, as well as showing that a vegetarian lifestyle is not only easy to maintain for periods of time, but also economically sound. El Leon‘s blog “Carpe Diem”[7] discusses how life should be considered from the perspective that it will be long and that no action should be considered simply for its short term effect. He states - “However, it is equally as important not to put so much stake in any particular moment or focus on merely short-term benefits.” Consuming beer may be enjoyable for a few hours, but at the detriment both of finances and work performance, the stakes may outweigh the benefits.

Physical Cost - Labor Involved in Food Production

Many enlightenment texts strive to show the true labor cost of food production. In Robinson Crusoe, the full labor is the product of one man, thus the challenges inherent are emphasized, which urges his readers to consider the production of their own food. Furthermore in “The Sommersett Case and the Slave Trade”[8] Franklin directly attacks the human cost of the luxury good sugar.

Robinson Crusoe highlights the many unnecessary accouterments of an opulent 18^th century diet, by showing how little is essential for survival, and the labor involved in producing each food product. Crusoe emphasizes just how difficult the simplest of foods can be to grow and make. He describes the immense amount of labor it took to produce bread “…what I believe few people have thought much upon, the strange multitude of little Things necessary in the Providing, Producing, Curing, Dressing, Making, and Finishing this one Article of Bread” (Defoe 146). By describing the lengthy bread making process Defoe encourages his reader to consider just how difficult food production is, and thus emphasizes how one should be grateful for the simplest foods, which can be just as wonderful. In Chase’s blog post Franklin as a Self-Help Writer[9], Chase explores how Franklin’s maxims from Poor Richard’s Alamanack can inform Robinson Crusoe. Chase draws the connection that Franklin’s encouragement of prudence in time management and self-reliance is a parallel concept to Crusoe’s determination to properly plant the barley and thus prosper. In this context, food becomes a means of survival, and its labor is depicted because of how difficult to obtain and essential it is, rather than simply as a means of obtaining physical pleasure or as a status symbol. Furthermore Smit-Marais explain how through self-sufficiency Crusoe become a different person: “he gradually begins to transform himself along with his environment. By the time he leaves the island 28 years later, he has become a resourceful and capable ruler…”[10].

“The Sommersett Case and the Slave Trade” demonstrates Franklin had strong feelings about the cruelty of slavery, and the cost producing inessential sugar had on a race of people. He emphasizes that food choices should be made with a moral conscience, and consideration of the people who participate in harvesting the crop. Sugar cane in particular is an incredibly physical endeavor; in this era it involved a huge amount of physical strength -- a person physically hacking away at a stalk. The idea that multitudes of people are working brutal labor-intensive hours for no pay, in order to produce a product that only provides a brief, mild satisfaction within the upper class is not one Franklin can tolerate. Franklin does not mask his argument in metaphor -- he flat out asks his audience: “Can the petty pleasure thence arising to the taste, compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men?” (Franklin 678). Vann Bentley’s blog post Do I Use Slave Labor?[11] asks an intriguing parallel question. He probes his modern day readers to consider whether his or her goods come from ethical sources, including fairly compensated labor. It begs the question – do we, as Americans, stand up against slave labor in the present or as Vann states “Are we therefore implicit in the same kind of willful ignorance?”

Conclusion

The writings of Defoe, Swift, and Franklin illustrate the complicated nature associated with ethical and prudent food choices. Each author has his own philosophy on food and the nature with which its consumption should be considered. By engaging my peer’s blogs, I was able to consider the implications of the necessity of food prudence both in terms of the enlightenment and in a modern context. I urge you to spend a few minutes considering modern equivalents to the issues raised. Should you really find comfort in a latte that contains coffee beans that were not obtained through fair trade laws? Should you really be eating that spicy tuna roll, when the tuna industry fishes unethically, utilizing illegal traps that result in the unnecessary death of dolphins and other marine life? Is there someone you know would really benefit from a free loaf of bread?

WWFD? (What Would Franklin Do?)

---

[1] Defoe, Daniel, and Evan R. Davis. Robinson Crusoe. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview,

2010. Print.

[2] Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Ed. Leonard Woods Labaree, Ralph L. Ketcham, Helen C. Boatfield, and Helene Fineman. New Haven: Yale UP, 2003. Print.

[3] Tapper, Alex. "On Prolepsis, Robinson Crusoe." Weblog post. English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment.

[4] Erkkila, Betsy. "Franklin and the Revolutionary Body." Elh 67.3 (2000): 717-41. Print.

[5] Wisiackas, Jess. "Ben Doesn't Rest in Peace." Weblog post. English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Web. .

[6] Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels. Ed. Claude Rawson and Ian Higgins. Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

[7] El Leon. "Carpe Diem." Weblog post. English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. .

[8] Franklin, Benjamin. "The Sommersett Case and the Slave Trade." The London Chronicle 20 June 1772. Print.

[9] Kojaian, Chase. "Franklin as a Self-Help Writer." Weblog post. English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. .

[10] Smit-Marais, Susan. "Converted Spaces, Contained Places: Robinson Crusoe's Monologic World." Journal of Literary Studies 27.1 (2011): 102-14.

[11] Bentley, Vann. "Do I Use Slave Labor?" Weblog post. English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Web. .

Saint Equiano

In the beginning of Chapter 5, Equiano relives the anguish that he felt upon being forced to accept Captain Duran as his master, despite being free in the eyes of the law. I found it strange that in his description of the events, Equiano does not blame the white men who are determining his fate, but instead puts everything in the context of God’s will. He does not express any hatred or disgust at the actions of his master or the captain, though their greed is costing him his freedom. Instead, Equiano writes that he “began to think that I must have done something to displease the Lord, that he thus punished me so severely.”

Equiano thus attributes his continued slavery to the fact that he had once “rashly sworn” to spend one day as a free man having fun. Though perhaps Equiano’s readers would have been accustomed to this type of self-detriment, his explanation seems ridiculous to me. Equiano refuses to blame the whites in his narrative, and instead blames his slavery on this one minor discrepancy (in an otherwise exemplary life). The explanation seems contrived to give readers the idea that Equiano is so incredibly pious and good that he could not possibly attribute these horrendous events to anything but his own sins. He is saintly and patient, telling his readers, “I thought God might perhaps have permitted this in order to teach me wisdom and resignation”— a line that left me thinking “Are you serious?”

I think this type of writing is a product of the fact that Equiano eventually managed to move up in life and live freely and comfortably. His novel is not written to inflame his white readership with accusations, but rather to ignite feelings of sympathy and shame within their hearts. He writes about the terrible behavior of the white people he has encountered, but paints himself as the unbiased narrator and allows his readership to condemn the characters in his story. He seems to be building up the persona of a “noble savage” and only occasionally addresses the anger felt by the slaves towards the tyranny they are subjected to. I think this makes the text much less interesting, but I assume that it would have been necessary for a black man in 1789 to write in this way.

Slavery as a double-edged sword

It is far from controversial to decry slavery as morally decrepit, and an absolute affront to human rights. What is less talked about, however, and what we began to discuss in class on Tuesday, is the toll slavery takes not only on those being enslaved, but on those who would enslave them. By this, I mean that in the process of enslaving another human being--reducing them to nothing more than property--a person loses their own humanity. Interestingly enough, this opinion is one shared by the enslaved. Equiano eloquently writes, "Such a tendency has the slave trade to debauch men's minds, and harden them to every feeling of humanity! For I will not suppose that the dealers in slaves are born worse than other men--No; it is the fatality of this mistaken avarice, that it corrupts the milk of human kindness and turns it into gall." The fact that slaves themselves seem to understand that the slave trade is a corrupting force points to the absolute moral bankruptcy of the trade, and creates an interesting paradox. Presumably, and understandably, slaves hated the men who propagated the trade itself, but they also seem to realize that the slave trade itself has corrupted these men to a point that they defy their own humanity. The fact that this sentiment presents itself in this piece of literature is especially interesting, as it seems to reach out directly to abolitionists. White abolitionists probably had more in common with slave traders than with slaves themselves, but by showing slave traders (white Americans) as good men who have been corrupted morally by the slave trade, Equiano allows white abolitionists to draw a distinct difference between themselves and the slave traders, and in so doing, allows them to take positions in favor of a group they normally would not relate to as easily as those they are taking arms against.

Equiano & Slave Photography

At first glance I was convinced our cover was from a very famous series of slave daguerreotypes from the advent of photography I learned about in a course on the history of photography. First I want to tell you a little about the photographs I was thinking of, because I believe our cover art was influenced by the work (both utilize very scientific viewpoints and show the subject primarily unclothed), and it relates quite interestingly I think to our discussion of race.

A quite well regarded scientist named Louis Agassiz, who did groundbreaking work on the ice age, commissioned a series of photographs in 1850 of slaves he believed would prove racial difference, specifically black inferiority. He believed by showing different physical characteristics, he would prove that they should be subordinate. He was also trying to support the theory we discussed in class of separate creation, which would indicate that blacks were another species entirely, and thus it was “fair” to treat them inhumanely.

The photographs are stunning, both in the scientific approach to their composition, and the simultaneous bit of dignity these marginalized people were able to maintain. Despite being treated as test subjects, these are ultimately people, and these photographs convey that too. I believe the series of photographs parallel how Equiano illustrates black humanity through comparing his African society to the Europeans and relating his experience with dignity.

Now onto a brief discussion of our cover photograph, which was created 20 years after the daguerreotypes in 1870. I can discern by the title “Portrait of a Man” rather than say a label of slave by region of Africa that this was probably created by an artist rather than for scientific ends. For what I can discern the image may have been made by a portrait painter who late in life may have adopted photography named Thomas Sully. He lived in Philadelphia for most of his life and his residence is now a historic landmark. I have ravenously researched this image and been unable to find it anywhere else to confirm who made it other than on the cover of our book, please let me know if you find a copy of it!

**For more information on the daguerreotypes read an excellent article online through the Vanderbilt Library called Black Bodies, White Science: The Slave Daguerreotypes of Louis Agassiz

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/stable/2963000?seq=5

Ben holds it down for New England

Benjamin Franklin’s “A Conversation on Slavery” was published in 1770 as a response to the English accusations of hypocrisy and injustice in colonial claims to liberty. Ironically, the prosperity of the English colonies in North America was a direct result of the slave trade. Franklin’s argument presented in “A Conversation on Slavery” is structured by a conversation between an American, an Englishman, and a Scotsman. The Englishman begins the conversation with, “You Americans make a great clamour upon every little imaginary infringement of what you take to be your Liberties; and yet there are no People upon Earth such as enemies to liberty, such absolute Tyrants, where you have the opportunity, as you yourselves are.” The American response to these accusations is one of denial and blame distribution, arguing that at least some of the blame should be put upon the English as well. He points out that only a few slaves exist in the largest English colonies of New England and belong only to a few wealthy men. He argues that slavery should not be labeled as a public crime in the colonies but instead only a few people are responsible for the accusations. Franklin takes it one step farther to explain that slaves are treated well during times of sickness, tounge-in-cheekly relating it to the care the English provide the poor. He compares the English bottom class to slaves again by suggesting that the poor in English aren’t free either because of English law, “They are obliged by English law "to work for their Masters so many Hours at such a Rate, and [these laws] leave them no Liberty to demand or bargain for more, but imprison them in a Workhouse if they refuse to work on such Terms.” Franklin is effectively able to turn the tables on the English by making a reference to their own citizens who they treat horribly. Franklin makes the concession that some colonists buy slaves, but England is responsible for facilitating the trade. He writes,

“You bring the Slaves to us, and tempt us to purchase them. I do not justify our falling into the Temptation. To be sure, if you have stolen Men to sell to us, and we buy them, you may urge against us the old and true saying, that the Receiver is as bad as the thief. This Maxim was probably made for those who needed the Information, as being perhaps that receiving was in it's Nature as bad as stealing: But the Reverse of the Position was never thought necessary to be formed into a Maxim, nobody ever doubted that the Thief is as bad as the Receiver." I took Franklin’s argument and attempt at passing off the blame as a reflection of his ultimate goal to defend the political and financial interests of the colonists. He does not really care about the truth of the matter, but instead is focusing on evading the harder questions on slavery by turning the accusations against his accusers. The conversation portrays Ben as a proud colonist of New England, who will not budge on the fact that the relatively small number of slaves in his province and their general treatment is much more noble than that of the southern colonies. He may know slavery is morally wrong, but he also realizes that the success of the South’s plantations is a direct result of the institution of slavery. The debate over slavery would not be silenced with this conversation, but instead would grow with the success of the American Revolution and continue on to be a major issue during the Civil War.

Do I Use Slave Labor?

In A Conversation on Slavery, in which an American, an Englishman, and a Scotchman argue over the issue of American slavery, the American uses the rhetorical strategy of equating unfair working conditions in other societies to the institution of slavery in his defense of America. He explains to the Englishman that “your working poor are not indeed absolutely slaves; but there seems something a little like Slavery, where the Laws oblige them to work for their Masters so many hours at such a Rate, and leave them no Liberty to demand or bargain for more.” To the Scotchman the American asserts that coal miners in Scotland “are absolute Slaves by your law, and their children after them, from the Time they first carry a Basket to the End of their Days.”

It is easy to spot certain logical fallacies in the American’s argument. First of all, pointing out unethical behavior toward laborers in other countries does nothing to lessen the horrors of American slavery, which the American does not adequately address. He rather uses the poor working conditions of the English and the Scotch as a red herring to distract from the issue of slave labor in his own country. Furthermore, however similar the living conditions between American slaves and the British poor (which in itself is a dubious claim), it can still be argued that there exists a substantive difference between finding oneself in unfortunate economic circumstances and being the legal property of another human being.

However, despite these flaws in the American’s logic, some of his claims warrant consideration. Just because the legal institution of slavery disappears from a society, does that preclude similar forms of economic entrapment that effectively strip the lower class of their liberty? While the American was applying this argument to 18^th century Britain, it seems relevant in our society today. The legal institution of slavery no longer exists in the United States, but how many of the goods that we buy come from countries whose laborers experience standards of living similar to 18^th century American slaves? I have no idea where any article of clothing that I am currently wearing was manufactured. Some, probably most, of my clothing was likely made in some other country. Very few of us do any research into finding out the conditions in which our goods are manufactured, despite the knowledge that something very similar to slave labor still exists throughout the world. Are we therefore implicit in the same kind of willful ignorance that the American points out in the Englishman and Scotchman? Do we pat ourselves on the back for living in a society free of institutionalized iniquity while supporting it abroad?

Slavery vs. the Slave Trade

I found the discussion between Gordon Turnbull and Olaudah Equiano to be rather interesting considering the content of Equiano’s narrative that we’ve read thus far, and our class discussion this past Tuesday. Turnbull defends the institution of slavery in the British West Indies, claiming that Europeans were rescuing “the kidnapped Africans from the brutal conditions existing in their native lands. He depicted the slaves in the English colonies as living in a well-provided and happy state” (326). It is then stated that Equiano attacked Turnbull’s claims in a letter written February 5, 1788. Clearly Turnbull’s account of what happened once the slaves stepped off the boat is not entirely accurate, for he describes the situation as if it were the best thing to ever happen to these now enslaved peoples. Yet, Equiano’s novel has not contained the horrible and demhumanizing description of slavery that I was expecting. In fact, most of his journey he has described as being somewhat of a positive learning experience.

For example, throughout his story it appears as if Equiano actually become rather friendly with many of his various masters as he was a good worker and they respected him for that. In fact he states that after a few years he felt “happly situated” at sea (92). He also began to feel more like an Englishman everyday he was out at sea. He describes his account of being fed and housed rather well, and only seems to be in despair when he has to change masters as he worries about his next master maybe not becoming his friend. This can be seen when he describes himself being plunged into “a new slavery,” comparing his previous experiences to that of “perfect freedom” (111). Equiano also discusses the captain’s clerk teaching him how to write, and promising Equiano that he would allow him to enter into business with him once he was a free man. Yet, in the meantime, Equiano was still treated “with the greatest kindness” and didn’t seem to mind his situation all that much (108).

Along the lines of our class discussion on Tuesday, it appears that all the descriptions of actual slavery are far more positive than those of the actual slave trade itself. However, Equiano still obviously ponders the idea of escape even though he does not describe his situation as all too miserable. In fact, Equiano was only physically harmed when he attempted to escape and was later found. Other than that he was properly treated and didn’t describe any of his masters as too unreasonable, brutal, or even mean. Maybe I’m overstating his happiness, as he could have just been trying to make the best of a bad situation, but Equiano’s story of slavery is vastly different from what I had previously learned on the subject.

The makings of civil rights?

Benjamin Franklin's publication concerning his plan for improving the condition of the free blacks was very interesting to me, because it speaks to the sort of issues we have been discussing in class, specifically with regards to Equiano. In much the same fashion that Equiano integrates himself into English society, and in doing so, calls into question the English identity as being anything more than someone who behaves like an Englishman, Franklin seems to suggest that we can take free blacks, educate them, find them work, and essentially act as their guardians in an effort to bring them out of poverty and into society. When I read this piece I really got a sense of social Darwinism--that Franklin believes that he, as an educated white man, is superior racially to these people seems certain--but that Darwinism (which I guess at this point wouldn't be labeled that haha) is not malicious in any way. I believe Franklin sees this issue in much the same way civil rights leaders in the early 1900s such as Booker T Washington did, namely, that blacks could indeed improve their lot in this country, but the way to do it was to work with white Americans, and try to improve their station to a certain point. Not until the 20th Century do we see civil rights leaders calling for full equality among the races, but it is interesting to see that at this point, in 1789, barely a decade after the Revolutionary War, Franklin can already see that free blacks will come to form an important and essential facet of the new American society. His compassion, coupled with his ingenuity for organization and administration allows him to create a comprehensive, albeit paternalistic, approach toward Free Blacks. It also struck me that his plan was for "improving the condition" of the Free Blacks, and not toward integrating them, or merely dealing with them; he seems to genuinely be concerned for making sure they are an important, and even positive force in his society.

Commoditization and Dehumanization in the Slave Trade 11/29

Of the numerous accounts on the atrocities committed in the treatment of slaves in An Interesting Narrative, Alexander Falconbridge’s description of the conditions in which Africans were transported was perhaps the most disturbing. Surgeons have always been a necessary position on a ship to preserve the health of sailors at sea for long periods of time. Even sailors themselves were often ravaged by illness due to lack of necessary provisions and nutrition, and required medical care. The environments that slaves were placed into were exceptionally more inhospitable, to the extent that they were entirely dehumanized.

After being partitioned and shackled below decks in confined cabins, equivalent to those meant to hold cargo on trading vessels. The exceedingly overcrowded cabins did not “permit them the indulgence of an erect posture”, and they were forced to lay on shelves. Combined with the sorting system, whereby men, women, and children were separated, the Africans were commoditized to the point that they were viewed as nothing more than alternative wares.

They were kept at bare subsistence levels of food and sanitation to minimize the cost of their transportation for maximum profits. “The diet of negroes, while on board, consists chiefly of horse-beans, boiled to the consistence of a pulp”, and they are provided with “three or four large buckets” to excrete in. Falconbridge likens the cabins to a slaughter-house, “so covered with the blood and mucus which had proceeded from them”. In such conditions, it is no wonder that they often became malnourished, and due to their confines were required to “ease themselves as they lie. This becomes a fresh source of broils and disturbances, and tends to render the condition of the poor captive wretches still more uncomfortable”. They were left to rot in their own filth in excessive heat, pushing them to prefer death to continued suffering. Women were raped, all were beaten and threatened with torture with “such brutal excess, as disgrace human nature”. Perhaps it was out of necessity that the crews transporting the slaves degraded them to the level of animals and commodities. By doing so they were able to alleviate any sense of compassion for the individuals that were forced to endure in “a situation more dreadful and disgusting” than comprehension allows.