How Is Animal Imagery Used In Frederick Douglass

This paper will be an analysis of Herman Melville’s Israel Potter: His Fifty Years of Exile and The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass. I will be assessing the use of animal imagery in both works. In particular, I seek to understand how Douglass uses this imagery in order to help his audience recognize the oppression of slavery and the dehumanization process both slave and slaveholder undergo. The main question that both writers address is what the difference between man and brute may be.
The presence of animals is essential to both texts, with the creatures functioning as complicated symbols. Melville’s Israel Potter suggests that the distinction between man and animal is not clear, while The Narrative of the

Douglass writes: Our food was coarse cornmeal boiled. This was called mush. It was put into a large wooden tray or trough, and set down upon the ground. The children were then called, like so many pigs, and like so many pigs they would come and devour the mush; some with oyster shells, others with pieces of shingle, some with naked hands, and none with spoons (Chapter 1). Essentially, the slave children are fed in the same manner and regarded in the same respect as animals. These descriptions create a universal and tangible picture of the inhumane treatment of slave children and raises awareness of the animal-like behaviors they must acquire to survive plantation life. In contrast with the description of socially inferior characters, which in Israel Potter are described with animalistic characteristics, figures of higher social status are illustrated without this imagery. The description can be satirical and even critical but it is not replete with the animal symbols. When Israel comes across Benjamin Franklin, who is a man of power, he is described as a “sage” and has qualities of wisdom. Israel notes that Benjamin Franklin is a

Israel is a master of disguise. He can change apparel when he wants and is capable of establishing a new identity. Slaves can change their clothes but not their skin color. White males had potential to climb the ladder of social status, while blacks had a permanent status because of their skin color. If you were an African American, living in a slave state you would be treated as if you were subhuman. We are reminded of the Squires authority over Israel. Also Israel calls the Squire an entertainer and a farmer, similar to Franklin’s variety of roles. Here the roles are scarce but the Squire still has freedom in some of his choices, unlike Israel or a slave. A slave might change his or her clothing, but if you were living in a slave state you were automatically subhuman or someone’s property. Israel might be described with animalistic qualities, but he judges others as brutes. He observes Paul Jones, who at first is portrayed as a “rude gentleman” and is described as an Indian chief in European clothes. The word “savage” is used frequently when describing this stranger. Franklin is the lion tamer