-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Last Slave Ship Survivor Gave an Interview in the 1930s. It Just Surfaced.
- Thread starter Saya
- Start date
You're right, but the author was a black woman in the 1930s. I honestly doubt she deviated from the highest degree of accuracy when transcribing his experiences.
Well, this thread is fucking awful.
If someone is being interviewed, I want the writing to be 100% accurate with what they said, word for word, flaws and all. Sanitizing it for readability takes away so much of the personality and humanity from the person.
If someone is being interviewed, I want the writing to be 100% accurate with what they said, word for word, flaws and all. Sanitizing it for readability takes away so much of the personality and humanity from the person.
User Banned (1 Week): Arguing in favour of whitewashing history for the sake of grammatical accuracy. History of insensitivity on racial issues.
imo it's not about the dialect, it's about how it was transcribed. Why not use original English spelling? You still keep the original meaning and grammar, the way the words were spoken by using correct spelling. Here I just replaced the D with TH, and corrected a few contractions:
"We very sorry to be parted from one another," Lewis told Hurston. "We seventy days cross the water from the Africa soil, and now they part us from one another. Therefore we cry. Our grief so heavy look like we can't stand it. I think maybe I die in my sleep when I dream about my mama."
On topic, his account is invaluable. I'm glad to hear about his story. Slavery seems to be too often forgotten or brushed away nowadays, or even being romanticised by far-right people. The horrible reality of being caught and brought forcefully to another continent to work as a slave, or being born and die as a slave should never be dismissed. It's part of the history of this country and should be taught properly.
"We very sorry to be parted from one another," Lewis told Hurston. "We seventy days cross the water from the Africa soil, and now they part us from one another. Therefore we cry. Our grief so heavy look like we can't stand it. I think maybe I die in my sleep when I dream about my mama."
On topic, his account is invaluable. I'm glad to hear about his story. Slavery seems to be too often forgotten or brushed away nowadays, or even being romanticised by far-right people. The horrible reality of being caught and brought forcefully to another continent to work as a slave, or being born and die as a slave should never be dismissed. It's part of the history of this country and should be taught properly.
I cannot grasp what benefit there would be to change this mans words from how he spoke them. These were his words, and if anything they reflect his history. Words spoken in a second language taught to him while in forced labor after being stolen from his home and having his freedom taken away.
I also cannot grasp that this is the discussion that emerges in this thread, while the sadness and pain of those very words barely gets touched upon. They hurt to read.
I also cannot grasp that this is the discussion that emerges in this thread, while the sadness and pain of those very words barely gets touched upon. They hurt to read.
So he was probably from present-day Benin. Yoruba is mostly spoken in Nigeria, Fon are the major ethnical group in Benin.
Back when I worked in the archives, one of the most infuriating things was going back to work on some transcripts from an interview series with old labor workers and finding out that the transcription service we farmed out to had cleaned up all the dialog and took out any pauses, coughing, and other interuptions. This really fucking sucked for one specific interview with an old coal worker, as the transcript the service returned to us made it sound like a nice pleasant conversation, where the reality of it if you listened to the interview was that he was constantly struggling to speak between gasping for air and coughing fits because he was dying of black lung from years of working in the mines.
Last edited:
Because your "corrections" don't reflect his reality and if you actually grasped how "invaluable" his account is, you would've never made this post in the first place. What you wrote doesn't even capture his voice.
Were they intentionally separated to maximize their confusion and make it harder for them to band together? I knew that the descendants of slaves lost connection to their history, but it didn't occur to me that it might be purposeful instead of just a result of the slavers not caring.
I personally wouldn't have used the dialect. I know it's a real dialect, I know that the thick accent is a result of him being forced to learn an unfamiliar language. But when he says "doan" instead of "doing" or "derefore" instead of "therefore", we know what he's saying, he's just got a thick accent. If you look at music sheets for minstrel songs they're all written in this way; we know why they emphasized that, I'm not really sure what this gains for having that accent emphasized.
I personally wouldn't have used the dialect. I know it's a real dialect, I know that the thick accent is a result of him being forced to learn an unfamiliar language. But when he says "doan" instead of "doing" or "derefore" instead of "therefore", we know what he's saying, he's just got a thick accent. If you look at music sheets for minstrel songs they're all written in this way; we know why they emphasized that, I'm not really sure what this gains for having that accent emphasized.
Because original English spelling doesn't accurately reflect his dialect....
Rude, rude.
My only comment was about the D/TH, and I approach that from a non-native speaker point of view. He spoke the same words as you and I, except the journalist wanted to really print the accent. I have an accent, being not-American, and I would find it very silly if I was quoted with English words "adjusted" to take the accent into account.
Because that's what he sounded like, and pieces of history shouldn't be changed "because we know what he's really saying".
My comment wasn't rude. The "D/TH" are an important part of capturing what this man actually sounded like; his "accent" is a product of his entire life in America.
Do you not understand the importance diction holds in text? Especially something that's biographical? What you're posting is foolish.
This thread is fucking terrible and I sincerely hope none of you are history majors or aspiring historians.
Last edited:
People still speak similar to that today. It's a dialect like any other. Here in the US Virgin Islands, you will still hear people talk similar to that, including me (I'm not African) although we can code switch and speak "proper English" because that's how students are taught. I'm aware that there are nasty stereotypes about speaking like that and intelligence, but I can assure you I work under brilliant leaders who talk like that.
It's wonderful imo to preserve the way he communicated.
It's wonderful imo to preserve the way he communicated.
It doesn't really reflect any modern dialect. Spellings are older than our pronunciations of them.
To be clear, I don't mean to say that it was a bad choice, it's just not the choice I would personally have made.
He spoke with an accent. The journalist realized why he spoke that way and captured it instead of whitewashing the impact of slavery by making a him speak "proper" English.
There's nothing "silly" about it. It's the whole point.
I agree so much. Just because Cudjo Lewis didn't speak what passed for standard American English of the time, it doesn't mean that his speech did not qualify as language that is worthy of recognition, dignity, and respect. Lewis' "dialect" has as regimented and as sophisticated rules of syntax and grammar as what was spoken in New England finishing schools of the day, and it shouldn't be seen in any way as lesser than other English dialects - not even the standard one.
If anyone's not familiar with the dialect he spoke, try to speak it yourself. They may fool themselves into thinking they've done a passable imitation, but I guarantee they will have fucked it up
Zora Neale Hurston's transcription of his words is beautiful. And Mr. Lewis' words are powerful, eloquent, full of poetry - exactly as they are. And they should be read with humility and reverence for his ability to survive and testify to the violence and injustice he endured.
I'm sorry, choodi. I don't mean to pick on you. I think your intentions weren't bad at all. And, in fact, you're trying to highlight what a revision might look like and why you prefer the original. But I only see drawbacks in your version. No benefits.
It highlights some pitfalls of trying to standardize/bastardize vernacular speech that has been respectfully and lovingly transcribed by an expert, qualified author.
Words were completely replaced where there was no need:
"Part" becomes "separated."
"Derefore" becomes "Because of that."
"mama" becomes "mother."
Tenses shift depriving Cudjo Lewis' words of its original nuance and poetry:
"I think maybe I die in my sleep when I dream about my mama" gets adulterated into:
"I thought I would die in my sleep when I dreamed about my mother."
The original present tense brings Cudjo Lewis' experience to vivid life. The revision to past tense distances the experience and clutters things up. It may have skewed the meaning of Lewis' original words, and may be therefore outright incorrect. Those dreams about his mama may have troubled Cudjo Lewis' sleep for all the decades of his adult life. He may have been living those dreams in his present. And, therefore, the the present tense is essential there.
"Silly" was in regard to printing my own accent with adjusted writing. Not his. Sorry if that was misunderstood.
There's really no need for anyone to be sniping at others in this thread.
As I said earlier, there are legitimate reasons for spelling out the original pronunciations and for changing it to a more orthodox spelling. Preferences will depend on the reader.
I'm this case, the author kept the original at the expense of getting it published, so you have to think she has a good reason to want it that way.
As I said earlier, there are legitimate reasons for spelling out the original pronunciations and for changing it to a more orthodox spelling. Preferences will depend on the reader.
I'm this case, the author kept the original at the expense of getting it published, so you have to think she has a good reason to want it that way.
Reading this thread. wowee.
Reading his original text of course reminds me of pidgin, which probably isn't too far off.
But it's really not that hard to understand the words and the context of why the author put it in this way.
This WAS the dude.
Reading his original text of course reminds me of pidgin, which probably isn't too far off.
But it's really not that hard to understand the words and the context of why the author put it in this way.
This WAS the dude.
If you spend five seconds thinking about why he talked the way that he did, it should be obvious why Hurston wanted to accurately capture his words. How he spoke tells a massive story in itself.
You say yourself that "we know what he's saying" so what benefit would there be to changing it from the original other than whitewashing?
Most of not all threads with the best intentions speaking about racism, it's history & looking a head - fall to the same cycle.
I'm still thankful this thread was made. There's a book about this I'd like to read.
Even if you pronounce a d sound slightly differently, spelling it in a way to phonetically approximate what you are hearing preserves the account as accurately as possible.
What benefit is there to changing what this man sounded like to reflect contemporary English, when it's already obvious what he's saying in the first place (spare me the "it's easier for non-native English speakers to read" excuse)? With this logic every piece of writing, whether fiction or non-fiction, should be changed to reflect modern times.
So virtually none. Got you.
Last edited:
Some people here seem real hot and bothered when confronted by the results of racism on one's language and speech. Wowee, let's just sanitize it a bit to make it more palatable, eh?
Book seems extremely interesting, definitely picking it up.
Book seems extremely interesting, definitely picking it up.
I agree with you 100%. For me, original all day, every day.
My "translation" was quick and dirty. If I was doing it professionally, I would have spent more time considering context etc.
The only positives that I can come up with for standardising are that it makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with reading the original pronunciations or for certain academic applications where what was said is more important than how it was said.
It's not about changing how he sounded like. This is not what I tried to do anyway. It's using then current (as of 1935) spelling to transcribe his words. If you take a New-Yorker, a Virginian, a Londoner, a Nigerian, and a German, you would get a wildly different collection of accents, sometimes coming with very specific language quirks (using local expressions, translated thoughts that sound foreign, etc). Yet, when transcribing the words of these people, you would use the same writing. You would put down the words on paper as they come out of their mouth, transcribing the quirks I mentioned, but you don't change the writing to remove or change some letters in the words.
I get wanting to put down his accent on paper. I think it's worthwhile to transcribe it as much as they could in the absence of a live recording. I was just wondering if maybe it could have been done differently while still preserving everything else. There's nothing more to it.
That's how he spoke. That itself is the value. Especially for historians
It doesn't matter what the intention of your post was. Replacing "doan" with doing and "derefore" with therefore objectively alters his dialect and makes his own words inauthentic. There's nothing more to it.
Y'all are caught up on how this man talk, worry about how you speak
This man was just some "slave" he was enslaved.
Enslaved Africans; not just fucking "slaves" like that's all they were. They were enslaved people, respect their humanity
This man was just some "slave" he was enslaved.
Enslaved Africans; not just fucking "slaves" like that's all they were. They were enslaved people, respect their humanity
This is an interview with the last man brought here on a slave ship - FIFTY YEARS after it was made illegal. An interview in the 20th century not that long ago. And half of you are bitching about syntax and spelling? Give me a fucking break - discuss the mans story and experiences not dere vs there.
Already bought it.
Going to start reading it after I settle in for the morning.
For what its worth, the argument is relevant to why it took almost 90 years for this to come out.
That said, I'll just leave it at Hurston was right, the publisher was wrong, and it is good that this finally reached the public and without the cleaned up wording.
The language issue is the reason we're only seeing this account now. It's relevant.
Obviously. Especially when the peculiarities of the expressed speech are integral to who that person was. To sanitize his words into classical written English is tantamount to erasing his history and to declare his Personhood to be worthless.
I am in awe that Hurston was so diligent and forward thinking as to preserve his transcripted accounts as close as possible to his speech. His quotes are so powerful thanks to this.
For anyone wanting to read into more interviews like this, I strongly recommend reading this collectionin the library of congress. As it turns out, Hurston herself actually did participate in this project, making it even more depressing that her work with Lewis got lost until now.
If you mean the language, not necessarily. Benin has many languages, Fon being the most widespread. If you mean the religion, possibily.
May this remind us all that we are not so far from history as we like to think.
This man lived until 1935, he lived to see Hitler rise to power in Germany, the invention of the plane and the automobile, WWI, the great depression and on and on.
And he was made a slave.
We must appreciate that more.
This man lived until 1935, he lived to see Hitler rise to power in Germany, the invention of the plane and the automobile, WWI, the great depression and on and on.
And he was made a slave.
We must appreciate that more.
