Self & Society: British Lit @Hood College

I'm a bit confused about specifically two things in this reading. The first is when Behn says, "I ought to tell you that Christians never buy any slaves but they give 'em some name of their own..." (2205). How exactly does that work? Unless I'm reading this wrong, this reads as if Christians are super in denial about slavery. The second thing that confuses me is at the bottom of 2205, where we're told that the slaves that Oroonoko comes across are the very same slaves he sold into slavery, yet here they are throwing themselves at his feet? Why would they do this? I do have to say that calling Oroonoko Caesar is basically foreshadowing of when the slaves betray him later on in the story and his fate of death. Also, the ending of this story is giving me some serious vibes of Braveheart , what with the disembowelment, draw and quartering, and the refusal to live in under the rule of another. .gif from Braveheart (http://media1.giphy.com/media/m12GiqBQywgbS

In the text Oroonoko is promised freedom over and over again without any follow through or sign of commitment to that guarantee. He's constantly assured that one day he will be free and his son won't be born into slavery but there is little evidence to support this promise. Still after all the deceit Oroonoko surrenders and accepts this. I'm curious why he still takes a man who has proven himself untrustworthy at his word. It think its very possible that he uses his hope as a way to cope and avoid dealing with the situation he's trapped in. In the end we see that all the promises were truly empty and that there was never any true intent of freeing him. Even though I know these promises where a manipulation tactic I still wanted to have that hope, like Oroonoko, that there was a chance.

While reading the second half of "Oronoko," I admit that I had trouble following the story at times. However, I feel that despite that problem, I was able to understand the main points that the author is trying to get across. The idea of a noble man and his wife, expecting a child, constantly tormented by the idea of being in servitude is upsetting, to say the least. Especially with the heartbreaking end to which Oroonoko and his wife are met. I understand that the author is trying to convey the brutality of slave masters, which I feel she did pretty well, but I found myself lost and sometimes troubled by the way she seemed to often objectify Oroonoko, making him seem like a valuable commodity that would be even more valuable if he was free. I wonder what points were supposed to really resonate with white women.

The ending of Oroonoko almost accomplished a feeling of "at least the bad guys didn't completely win" until our great hero was quartered and mailed. I truly do not understand why he did not spite-suicide himself like he convinced Imoinda to. He still had the physical energy to kill the first soldier to approach him, so why not use that energy on self sacrifice? Perhaps he could have used his body to communicate a message if not with words with symbolism. My theory is that the author couldn't let the underdogs win entirely (or the sympathy would be lost? or the roused anger at real world injustices would have been hampered), and thus the descriptive and upsetting defeat of the favored character.