Upon hearing of Annie’s decision, John does not contradict and instead goes back on his word to fire him. Annie’s reaction, however, serves to indicate that Julius actually came out as victim in this battle of wits: she takes the moral to heart and decides to give a Julius’ grandson one more chance even though John had already made a decision and told Julius earlier that he would have let the boy go as a worker since he wasn’t dependable. John perhaps unwittingly displays once again his deep-seated sense of white superiority by snidely thanking Julius for outlining the moral lest he and his wife not have been sharp enough to pick up on it for themselves. This moral to the story that Julius has just told is met greeted by John and Annie in two different ways that again reveals the growing chasm between how they respond to the stories. More importantly, however, is how this excerpt works an example of how seemingly homely speech can mask a far more advanced intellect.
This quote is an example of the difference between John’s narrative of the contemporary events and the recording of how Julius relates the story-within-the-story that is the core of the narrative. "Dis yer tale goes ter show dat w'ite folks w'at is so ha'd en stric', en doan make no 'lowance fer po' ign'ant niggers w'at ain' had no chanst ter l'arn, is li'ble ter hab bad dreams, ter say de leas', en dat dem w'at is kin' en good ter po' people is sho' ter prosper en git 'long in de worl'." Uncle Julius This almost throwaway observation is designed to indicate John’s view that she is more gullible because she might actually believe the more outrageous elements of the stories when in fact it later becomes apparent that Annie’s “strained attention” is really due to her critical appreciation of the subtleties at play. John's Narrativeīy the second story, it begins to become more apparent that Annie has greater insight into to the subtle use of irony and layered meanings in the stories Julius tells than John, who is more given to address them at face value. In this example, John’s latent sense of superiority is subtly revealed in the implicit interpretation that he is unable to make that statement only because he cannot reconcile being outwitted by a former slave.Īnnie had listened to this gruesome narrative with strained attention. Over time, it becomes more apparent that Julius is manipulating the supposedly superior whites who now own the plantation. This is the first example of how it is possible that the stories Uncle Julius tells are not just mere entertainment not just folklore and myth, but rather an indication of wisdom and craftiness. This, doubtless, accounted for his advice to me not to buy the vineyard, though whether it inspired the goopher story I am unable to state. I found, when I bought the vineyard, that Uncle Julius had occupied a cabin on the place for many years, and derived a respectable revenue from the product of the neglected grapevines. The grapevine in question has actually been cared to by a former slave for many years and John’s observation of its state is an unintended revelation of a racist attitude toward things being cared for by blacks not actually be cared for at all within the ideological perspective of a dominant prevailing race.
With this observation that the vineyard had been neglected, however, he reveals a distinct symptom of white superiority.
John likes to present himself as a progressive white man who finds slavery abominable and is given to underestimating his level of racist beliefs. The de facto narrator of the collection, the white Northerner named John who has bought what used to be a slave plantation. There had been a vineyard of some extent on the place, but it had not been attended to since the war, and had lapsed into utter neglect. We are thankful for their contributions and encourage you to make your own. These notes were contributed by members of the GradeSaver community.
0 kommentar(er)
