Thesis: The subversion of the master narrative is done differently by Frederick Douglass in “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself” and Henry David Thoreau in “Resistance to Civil Government” and Walden. Frederick Douglass speaks on American exceptionalism and notes slavery as something that does not need to be part of the master narrative. Henry David Thoreau also overturns the idea of American exceptionalism by talking about resisting the government of America. Both men are trying to change something that previously was a fundamental part of the American narrative of exceptionalism.
I. Frederick Douglas subversion of the master narrative though the attack on slavery, a fundamental part of the American …show more content…
Douglass will take more steps to fix the egregious acts and Thoreau will not step over the line that needs to be done. Especially when it comes to slavery as the center point for most of the conflict about American exceptionalism. “From that time until now, I have been engaged in pleading the cause of my brethren—with what success, and with what devotion, I leave those acquainted with my labors to decide” (1235).
b. Thoreau has the same resistance feeling throughout all of his works but never goes past the line. He speaks on the United states government in a way Douglass cannot because of their respective places in society. He subverts it using comparison to Britain and this is to show that they do not have slavery. “The government of the world I live in was not framed, like that of Britain, in after-dinner conversations over the wine” (1154).
Concluding Statement: The fundamentals of American exceptionalism and the master narrative as a whole are questioned and destabilized by Douglass and Thoreau. Whether it is Douglass’s bleak look at the institution of slavery or Thoreau’s judgement of the American government, both raise questions on exceptionalism. There individual treatment of the subjects at different outlooks on the major problems with the narrative and leave room for people to change for the
I. Frederick Douglas subversion of the master narrative though the attack on slavery, a fundamental part of the American …show more content…
Douglass will take more steps to fix the egregious acts and Thoreau will not step over the line that needs to be done. Especially when it comes to slavery as the center point for most of the conflict about American exceptionalism. “From that time until now, I have been engaged in pleading the cause of my brethren—with what success, and with what devotion, I leave those acquainted with my labors to decide” (1235).
b. Thoreau has the same resistance feeling throughout all of his works but never goes past the line. He speaks on the United states government in a way Douglass cannot because of their respective places in society. He subverts it using comparison to Britain and this is to show that they do not have slavery. “The government of the world I live in was not framed, like that of Britain, in after-dinner conversations over the wine” (1154).
Concluding Statement: The fundamentals of American exceptionalism and the master narrative as a whole are questioned and destabilized by Douglass and Thoreau. Whether it is Douglass’s bleak look at the institution of slavery or Thoreau’s judgement of the American government, both raise questions on exceptionalism. There individual treatment of the subjects at different outlooks on the major problems with the narrative and leave room for people to change for the