ARGUMENTS
411
decrees that normal whites do not relate to blacks in terms of genuine
respect and equality.
The slave Will who "scorned to take his master's name" and who
is reported by Turner to have joined the insurrection because "his life
was worth no more than others and his liberty as dear" and who was
"resolved to obtain it [liberty] or lose his life" becomes another figure
borrowed from plantation melodrama. He is a ravening, demented, hate–
maddened monster who "sidles" into the scene stinking, licking his
fangs, driven by blood lust to rape white women. In this case, the
bestiality of the figure is attributed to the abuses of a cruel master
rather than natural depravity, but the figure is a familiar one from
a certain school of southern writing.
The rebellion is defeated by loyal slaves, armed by their masters,
who attack the insurrectionists with, in Turner's words, "as much pas–
sion and fury and
even
skill" as their white masters. When three black
coachmen maul the rebel Hark with "exuberance and glee," it is an–
other indication of the benevolence of the enlightened, aristocratic
Virginia gentleman, whose slaves were contented, loyal and believed
themselves superior to "field niggers." Not only did no such confronta–
tion take place, but all the evidence suggests that the majority of slaves
placed more importance on their standing in the slave community,
with its own rules and values, than on the goodwill of their masters.
In general, the emphasis on the slaves' worshipful affection for "the
quality" is at odds with the radical implications of the "obscurely pre–
marxist" forces Mr. Styron mentioned in his
Harpers
essay.
There are many other instances of the influence of prevailing
myths on Mr. Styron's historical recreation. For example, Nat's doubts
about his ability to cope with the freedom promised him by his master
(who is presented, with no discernible irony, as being inhibited from
freeing all his slaves only by his fears for their survival in that unac–
customed condition) are inexplicable in light of what Drewry reports
about the free black population of the county.
It
would be too optimistic for blacks to expect the white literary
and scholarly establishment to abandon the comfortable myths, tradi–
tions and habits of many lifetimes to undertake the reassessment of
black historical and cultural contributions and realities. But we must
insist - a burden no other minority appears to have - on our preroga–
tive to define this heritage in
terms
of our own choice. This is necessary
not only to black needs of the moment, but to fill a vacuum in the total
history, consciousness and sensibility of the nation. By glossing over
that vacuum and denying by implication the very existence of our own
terms, this novel reinforces the foolish and dangerous notion that
