Symmetry wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Are you now disagreeing with yourself?
Have to admit, tho, it's interesting that you used the word, "contempt."
I think you must find her willingness to lay with a white dude in Virginia very contemptible. If you didn't find it that contemptible, you'd probably look at the evidence of how she was treated and stop with your emotionalist line all about how she could not have actually liked him and wanted sex with him.
Yup. If you didn't have such contempt for a female slave, you'd probably be willing to admit that just because she was slave didn't mean her emotions had been lobotomized.
You're just being silly now stahr.
No. I'm serious.
You, by continuing to deny that she could have been motivated by something as simple as love, are de-humanizing her.
You dehumanize her as badly if not worse than the Virginians whose "law" made it impossible for her and Jefferson to openly love each other as free white man and free black woman.
Evidence suggests she was treated pretty much as any bastard female of a family might have been treated even without "black blood" in her; evidence does NOT suggest she was treated as one might think "a mere black slave" would be treated.
According to the evidence, she comported herself so well she was Jefferson's daughter's attendant at many European functions, and was dressed to present well at those functions. She was also well educated; and, at times, paid.
It appears she was raised to have some pride and dignity.
And you would strip all that humanity away from her simply because the laws of Virginia at that time labelled her "slave."
That, Symmetry, is "contempt."
Misstating her name because I'm poor with names or misspelling it because I'm used to double consanants and hers is single, is not.
I, on the other hand, look at that evidence that is available and assign very female, very HUMAN, emotions to her. That, Symmetry, is "respect."
Your argument: she was too young. She would not have thought that, no woman at that time would have thought that because she was several years over the age of consent they were used to.
Your argument: she was slave. She would not have felt that because she wasn't TREATED as slave - as evidenced by the information about how she WAS treated.
Your argument: they had sex so it must be rape. If she loved him, she would have welcomed him, and evidence suggests she wanted to be there. Wanting to be there implies love.
Your argument: she feared him so wouldn't say no. If she feared him, she'd have fled, she had plenty of opportunity to do so, understood many languages, was used being "a foreigner" in "strange situations" so that would not have upset her. She even had a way to earn her living.
Evidence suggests she stayed out of love. That's what "any human female" would do.
And if she loved him, she'd have said yes. That, too, is what "any human female" would do.
He didn't rape her. She wanted him. If she didn't, she'd have left because she had many opportunities to do so. It's what "any human female" would do.
Stop denying her her humanity, Sym. Look at the evidence and see the brave black woman who loved a man, that it portrays.
And while you're at it, consider the white man she loved, and who loved her, trapped by society into concealing their love - just like any man with a mistress he loved would have to do.