Jan 27 2010
Queequeg: Savage?
Professor Friedman commented in class that Melville was not thought of as a political or cultural writer. Ishmael’s numerous comments, however, about his impressions of Queequeg, a cannibal and a “savage,” indicate otherwise. Indeed, writing a book that seems willing to take on most issues about the human condition, Melville does not exclude the particularly touchy subject of race on the eve of the civil war. Melville encapsulates the problem when Ishmael writes “But savages are strange beings; at times you do not know exactly how to take them” (48-49). Let me not try to get in over my head, but the issue of how much latitude to give people different from oneself, or “savages,” endures. With imperialism, or any means of subjugation, Americans saw the imminently-conquered practicing totally foreign habits. The few more tolerant granted them their difference, making limited worth judgements on them as people, while most used the easy definition of “different” as inferior, rationalization to subjugate them. And I would contend further that this issue continues today. Liberal sociologists maintain that inner-city high school students don’t succeed in school solely because of their environment, while more conservative thinkers are comfortable to make some judgement about their nature dooming them. I digress: Ishmael experiences his problem firsthand with Queequeg. Irrespective of his introduction to Queequeg, outfitted with his tomahawk in addition to his imposing stature, compounded on the news that he actually goes around selling heads (did I read that right?), Ishmael has presuppositions and biases against the character of people like Queequeg. Melville certainly doesn’t make it easy for us to be completely pro-Queequeg when he is a cannibal, but while the descriptor “cannibal” may in fact just be an accurate term for Queequeg, when conflated with “savage” it takes on its negative connotations. Despite his view, allowing the reader to experience and even share a bit of racism, Ishmael includes many of the virtues of Queequeg. They abound our reading for Wednesday, but a couple of my favorites were from The Counterpane. Ishmael writes, after Queequeg gives him the privacy to dress, “this is a very civilized overture; but, the truth is, these savages have an innate sense of delicacy, say what you will; it is marvellous how essentially polite they are” (27). While Ishmael missed the mark with the word “civilized,” he nailed it with “delica[te],” or, considerate. Goodness does not stem from “civilization,” (just think of stingy, “pious” Bildad) and Ishmael shows signs of acknowledging that. And even if he doesn’t acknowledge it quite yet, he allows us to. Similarly, on the next page, Ishmael includes an instance of Queequeg’s good sense. Unlike how a Christian man applies his ablutions, Queequeg uses his harpoon to shave. Though Ishmael regarded it negatively at the time, later he admires Queequeg’s resoucefulness and handy use of very sharp steel, giving him a very close shave. Again, we are invited to as well. At the very least, if Melville doesn’t have some political agenda, I don’t know who does.
One Response to “Queequeg: Savage?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ben, I applaud you for being the first to write a post, and to tackle a big theme — well, a few big themes. This post is meaty and invites responses. I think you do a good job of throwing down the gauntlet for us all to think about how ideas of racial difference, “savagery,” civilization, and stereotypes converge in the mind of Ishmael, and I think you also do a good job of noticing the difference between how Ishmael might view or describe Queequeg, and how we, the readers, with our own 21st century biases and perspectives, might view him. A word of advice for future posts: try to keep the post to one theme or idea that you analyze closely, rather than trying to pack too much into one post. For instance, you were obviously interested in the idea that Queequeg is meant to represent the first “savage” we encounter, but we quickly see, through Ishmael’s rather open-minded change of heart, that Queequeg is not at all a “savage,” despite being everything a “savage” ought to be in the mind of a 19th century American: a non-Christian, non-white idol-worshipper who eats others (maybe). This idea could supply you with plenty of fuel for a good post — the digressions towards political persuasion, and even the mention that Melville is not a political writer (of course he is — but his critics didn’t understand that), allow you to stray into territory that will force you to make large, generalizing statements. Such statements are difficult to support in any kind of paper, especially a short post. So stick to the text, especially in the beginning, and we’ll see how expansive we can grow from there.