An Analysis of Sojourner Truth

Sojourner Truth was unable to read or write. Therefore, her speech was transcribed by the Frances Gage and given the title “Ain’t I a Woman?” in Gage’s 1881 publication of The History of Woman Suffrage. Sojourner Truth was born in New York and grew up in a Dutch family. However, the Gage’s text portrays her of having a seemingly southern drawl. Taking these facts into consideration how did Frances Gage affect Sojourner Truth’s speech in regards to reproducing it from spoken word onto paper?
Sojourner Truth, being from New York and having never been to the south, would not have a southern accent as Gage portrays her to. In Gage’s account of Truth’s speech that includes dialect, found online at About.com, Gage reports that Truth said things such as “I tink dat ‘twixt de niggers of de Souf and de womin at de Nork”, or “Den dey talks ‘bout dis ting in de head; what dis dey call it?”. According to Available Means ”Truth… would not have had a Southern dialect and that therefore any representation of dialect was likely created by the transcriber”. When I read the speech with dialect, it sounded, to me, very much like something that came out of the movie Gone with the Wind. When I read some of the dialect aloud, it reminded me of Scarlet O’Hara’s accent in the movie. It reminded me, more so, of the way Scarlet’s nurse, Mammy spoke in the movie. However, I would imagine that Truth’s voice would be less high-pitched and less “girly” than Scarlet’s, but possibly pretty similar to Mammy’s, assuming she did speak in a southern dialect. The fact that Truth was from New York shows Gage may have added the dialect herself and it was not really said by Truth. Therefore, Gage had an effect on the speech. Not only does Gage have an effect on the speech with the addition of dialect, but the spelling of the dialect is another way Gage’s affect’s Truth’s transcribed speech.
When it comes to the spelling in Gage’s speech, the “dialect” parts are spelled very inconsistently. In Gage’s version of the speech with dialect in it, “and” is spelled out. However, from Redd and Webb’s book, I learned that “and” is shortened to “an”. Gage writes “I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me!” This selection of speech, though, sounds very much like Standard English. Gage also reports that Truth said, at one point, “wouldn’t ye be mean…”, however, later in the speech, Truth is reported as saying “Whar did your Christ come from?” The first form of ‘you’ is written in dialect, but the ‘your’ is in Standard English. Therefore, my question is: why would Truth say this part in Standard English, yet say other things with a southern dialect? Gage’s spelling of the dialect being inconsistent is yet another way that she affected the transcription of Truth’s speech. Not only is the spelling in Gage’s report a way that she affected Truth’s speech, but the fact that it is argued whether the speech took place or not is another way Gage affected the speech.
The uncertainty of the speech taking place is an example of the affect Gage had. Available Means reports “Some scholars question whether Truth ever delivered this speech at all, suggesting that it was invented by Gage to advance white women’s causes”. This speech could very well have been made up by Gage to assist women in the Women’s Rights movement. The speech, however took place in 1851 and Gage’s book, in which she included the speech, was not published until thirty years later in 1881. Personally, I think it would be very difficult to remember, word-for-word, something that took place thirty years earlier. Since it is argued whether this speech actually took place or not, Gage’s reproduction of the speech is another way that she affected Truth’s speech. Despite whether the speech actually happened or not, including the speech in her own book towards the advancement of Women’s Right’s is another example of Gage’s affect on Truth’s speech.
“Ain’t I a Woman” has been known as an important part of the history of Women’s Right’s. According to Available Means, “These few words… broke open the ideology of the nineteenth century’s assumptions about ‘true womanhood’… [and] presages many of the central issues in women’s rhetoric to this day”. This speech having become such a respected, important document would have been a good reason for Gage to fake the speech to help advance Women’s Rights by putting it in her publication. The speech, in assistance to Women’s Rights makes Gage look good because she supposedly transcribed it. This is a way that Gage had an effect on Truth’s speech.

English 301 - advanced composition
Sojourner Truth analysis
Critical Response Journal #4
28 October 2010

A Negative Language Misapprehension Slowly Altered by Higher Education

I was always taught that African American English, while it may not be proof that the speakers is unintelligent or uneducated, it is not a language on its own. I was taught that it has no rules and it is merely a dialect of Standard English. Growing up in a white, middle-class, conservative family, I had no exposure to anything otherwise. I was blind to African American English, for the most part, all the way from elementary school up to high school. I only knew the language that African Americans spoke as “lazy”, “rebellious” and “dumbed-down” until my Language Awareness class in college.
I had heard it spoken in elementary school and middle school somewhat, but it was something I pretty much just ignored. It was in high school when I began to really comprehend what was meant when things were said like “They’re just lazy and trying to be rebellious, they’re idiots and need to learn to speak proper English”. From hearing these misconceptions my entire life, my friend base was predominantly white and I paid no never mind to those of any other ethnicity because it had been burned into my head that they were less worthy or senseless.
Spanish, on the other hand, is a language that I have always been interested in and interested in learning since I was in elementary school. The discrimination against Spanish-speakers, though, to my knowledge, did not start in my family until Triumph opened in south end Saint Joe. Therefore, I was at an age where I was able to make my own, unbiased decisions and conclusions. I had only heard Spanish in my foreign language classes and through the few words and numbers my mother had taught me at an early age.
When it comes to African American English, I still have a hard time hearing and not automatically thinking “uneducated” or “lazy” because it is so embedded in my up-brining. It has gotten easier with my college courses considering the topic, however, in the back of my mind, occasionally, it is still there. I can ignore it, but I cannot ignore the fact that it exists. The language used in my childhood has been hard to erase and adjust. Its assertiveness and magnitude has been with me, even before I was old enough to really understand it. I do realize and acknowledge the negative effects it can and has had on my life. It has inscribed pessimism in my mind that has taken years to change.
The language that is used around a child, frequently, while they are growing up can strongly affect their entire life negatively and positively, whether intentional or not. Even a simple descriptive word like “lazy”, or calling things “stupid”, if used often enough, can lead to automatic assumptions by a child in later life, causing generalization, racism, segregation and discrimination. Frequently saying “d*mn Mexicans need to learn English or go the f*ck home” around a six-year-old, can, inevitably, lead that child to hating Spanish-speaking people and not being able to properly comprehend, or be willing to learn about the language and ethnicity as a whole. Whether it is being said jokingly by the adult, or very rarely, the more it is said, the less effort is takes for it to stick in young minds. The affect can take a lifetime to reverse. The negative generalizations I have been exposed to certainly have taken a while to repeal.
African American English, I know now due to my college classes, has its own rules and guidelines. An openness to accepting African American English as a language rather than a dialect and allowing its speakers to be accepted as opposed to categorized and classified by how they talk would, in my person opinion, but an effective way to eliminate some of the racism and discrimination in American society. With African American English known as “rule-governed” rather than “lazy” and “incorrect” would be an efficient way to eradicate the low self-esteem and instructional sacrifices of African Americans in the world of education all the way from elementary school to the college and university level as well. Doing away with these characterizations begin at the home front and changing the language taught to children.

English 301 - advanced composition
AAE analysis
Critical Response Journal #3
13 October 2010

An Analysis about Defining Men by Their Weakest Link

The language of Andrea Dworkin’s speech “I Want A Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape” is harsh and demanding. This way of talking at other people can do one of two things: It will both draw attention and recruit them to side with the speaker, or turn them away from what is being said completely. Either way you perceive her speech, Andrea Dworkin states facts. She does not cloud her stated opinion with “pretty” phrases as other female rhetors do.
Dworkin said “Everybody raise your hand who believes you have the right to rape. Not too many hands will go up. It’s in life that men believe they have the right to force sex, which they don’t call rape.” While many men will disagree with this statement, she is stating facts about the beliefs of some men. This statement is false in that not every man truly, deep-down, believes it. However, it is true in that society does teach men and women both that men have authority over women in every aspect, including that men have the right to do whatever they please, sexually, with women, even if the woman does not concur to the action.
Society teaches us that men, exclusively, have the ability to hold higher-paying, better jobs than women. It teaches us that men, opposed to women, are allowed to be whatever they choose to be, whereas women must have a title labeling them by whether or not they “belong” to a man. This is the point Dworkin attempts to make in her speech: That men have power over women in every aspect, including willing and reluctant sexual situations. To which Dworkin reported “[P]ower… is the sum and substance of women’s oppression.” Were men not taught, from birth, that they could excel further than women; there would be no female oppression. Were men not taught that they are better, by right, than women; there would be no female oppression. Were men not taught that they have the ultimate power in this world over women; there would be no female oppression. Did men not hold that ultimate power, rapes and sex-related crimes against women would not take place.
Andrea Dworkin simply wants the men whom are not doing the raping, to, instead of insisting that they are not rapists and they do not do the crime, to take a stand and convince their fellow, guilty men to discontinue the crimes against women they are committing. However, yelling at men, telling them they are all rapists, will either force them to take a stand and prove her wrong, or become defensive and turned off to her goal. She said, “Tell the pornographers. Tell the pimps. Tell the war-makers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues… These men presume to speak for you. If they don’t, then you had better let them know.” Wherein she asking men to stop talking and do something. Dworkin does not believe that having a rapist’s nature is true of all men, but she is defining men by their weakest player, so to speak.
If the rapes were stopped, male dominance would decrease, allowing equality among the sexes to enhance and escalate in every aspect, let alone in sexual situations. If the innocent men took a stand against the guilty men, showing respect for women, their proclaimed beliefs in equality would be established rather than simply just verbalized. It is said that “seeing is believing” and the character of Sandy in the movie Grease says it best when she says “I’ll believe that when I see it.” As well, the ever-famous court-related quote “guilty until proven innocent”, are all perfect associations to Dworkin’s belief, “I will believe it when I see you on the streets… when I see an organized political opposition… when pimps go out of business because there are no more male consumers.” The demanding challenge to all men is to prove her wrong and to do something about it.

English 301 - advanced composition
Andrew Dworking analysis
Critical Response Journal #2
30 September 2010