Forums

Phyllis Wheatley, as a slave brought over from Africa and forcefully converted was surely a victim of those who preached Christianity, but practised the cruelties of slavery? Her initial identity and beliefs were forcefully replaced by her captors. However, even after the bleakness of slavery, if she found comfort and beauty in the message of Christianity (over the previous "pagan beliefs" that she writes of) and encouraged other Africans to convert, is she the same as the Islamic state who primarily use violence and blackmail to coerce others to their system of belief? The parallel between the Islamic state and Wheatley's initial captors can perhaps be seen, but not with Wheatley herself. Wheatley's readers have the choice to ignore her message, as she passively spreads it through poetry and such. The victims of the Islamic State at gunpoint who have no choice but to comply? Not so much.

Everyone's beliefs are important to them, no matter the religion or lack thereof. In every person's mind, the belief system or religion they follow is the correct one, or the better one, otherwise they would not continue to support or follow it of their own free will. Yet the world is not full of warring and violent peoples. The idea in the superiority of their religion or belief system is not the driving force of violence. There are many debates amongst peoples and religions, but nobody is truly killing each other over those beliefs. I don't believe for a second that those in charge of the Islamic State actually believe what they preach, but hey, it sure is useful in brainwashing others to use as pawns in their schemes.

The root of the violence cannot therefore be the idea that one religion or belief system is better than the other.
Throughout history religion, or more specifically, carefully selected parts of religious and other teachings have been used to perpetuate violence in order to further political ambitions or economic goals. The world has seen all sorts of teachings and systems weaponized; Socialism, Communism, Monarchy, Capitalism, even Darwinism to harm others. They are used as mere tools for some material, political, or social gain.

The slave owners, as you seem to suggest, used Christianity as an excuse to enslave innocent people and assert dominance over them, but in reality, it was the promise of colonial expansion and economic advancement that led them to exploiting human lives. The industrial revolution may not have been possible were it not for the immense amounts of wealth being brought in from the colonies. Even now, many who claim to be concerned about human rights or the environment are silent in the face of the very real slavery and human exploitation occurring around the world today. Corporations benefit from it enough that they refuse to acknowledge it.

Any ideology can be twisted and thrown around to justify violence and cruelty, and while the strong belief in the superiority of an ideology can be used for mischief and harm, there are many other material motivations that they often disguise.

I think it's also valuable to note that Wheatley engages christianity in "On Being Brought from Africa to America" to assert the equality of black people--I'm not totally convinced that the speaker of the poem is even promoting conversion. As has been said, the implications of the poem's first four lines are certainly problematic--the speaker exhibits internalized racism, interpreting the culture she was born into by the standards of the dominant culture that others her in her disdain for the "Pagan land" of her birth and her "benighted soul." But in the last four lines the speaker seems to be confronting the dominant white culture that marks her as other, reminding them of the christian idea ostensibly informing the culture that all people are created equal and are equally capable of pursuing salvation--even those the dominant culture takes for benighted pagans.

I really appreciate rizwanzara's point that Wheatley was unlikely to have found an audience for poetry depicting the pain and suffering of black Americans' experiences--we should consider this poem in context of its audience, which would have been comprised of mostly white christian members of the dominant culture. The speaker does not work to persuade other black people to convert to christianity, but to remind the dominant culture that its belief in universal equality is, well, universal. I think it's then also clear that Wheatley's project is quite the opposite of ISIS's: where Wheatley is trying to establish her relevance to and equality within the dominant culture, ISIS is trying to establish a movement that is counter to western culture and to present it as superior.