This forum asks to address one of the following in 250 words.

Revolution and Rights
This week, we'll be looking at the idea of "natural" rights from a British perspective. We all know the story of the American rebellion from this side (more or less), but now we'll get a chance to have a look at things from the other side. To this end, we'll be looking at two speeches by Brits, one supporting and one against the American cause. We'll follow these up with another reading about rights and revolution, though in a more roundabout way. Our final reading for the week is a slave narrative which outlines some of the issues which undercut all this talk about "natural" rights on both sides of the Atlantic.

Burke
On that count, the idea of the "natural" was a very much a part of eighteenth century politics, particularly in the contexts of man's natural rights and dignity. It is this strain of "nature" that we see clearly in our first reading, a speech by Edmund Burke. A fiery orator and political conservative, he supported the grievances of the American colonists in the days preceding the Revolutionary War. Much like the colonists themselves, you'll find him using phrases such as "natural liberty" and "the natural constitution of things" in his speeches (notably the full version of the speech we've got on the list for this week).

Johnson
Johnson also, in his speech, tackles some basic notion of what it means to be English (as does Burke), which ties in with the notion of a sort of "natural" order, but here, I'd like you to focus on the way the idea of slavery is used, both by him and by those he's reacting against. Unlike Burke, Johnson was not on the side of the colonists, so don't be fooled--when he quotes colonial claims back to the colonists, he's doing it to undercut them, not to reiterate or support them. On the question of slavery, specifically, I'd like you to keep an eye on how these rhetorical notions measure up against actual practice, and how they come into play in Johnson's own sens of what "English" identity should be. Here, we have a sense of "us" and "them" presented, but on very different terms than we will find in Equiano's narrative.

Equiano
Our third author, Olaudah Equiano, is an interesting figure in English literary history, in part because he's not "English" ... at least not in the same way that many of our authors have been. He was an African, essentially forced into the English context by enslavement, and he spent much of his life in the colonies and at sea. He is an English literary figure nonetheless, as he was educated in England, wrote in English, and resided there after his emancipation.

His presence in this course offers us an avenue into discussions on "English" identity, and the role of the colonial enterprise in creating it, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in particular. In this vein, I'd like you to consider, as you read, the role of geography here (essentially, what happens where), and see what you make of the place of slavery in England itself, versus the colonies, and consider Equiano's position in this ongoing discussion of "natural" rights. Also, I'd like you to think about identity categories here, and consider the ways in which Equiano incorporates religion, race, and nationality into his narrative. This is, after all, an anti-slavery narrative, which depends, in part, on breaking down, or at least blurring, certain boundaries between "us" and "them" while perhaps reinforcing others.

1. Putting aside your own possible biases on the subject, determine who makes the better case, Burke or Johnson?

2. How does Olaudah Equiano's story either support or undercut the sorts of qualities and ideals that the colonists, Burke, and Johnson are arguing about?