Though there is evidence on both sides of the argument
regarding Equiano’s birthplace, it seems more likely that he was born in South
Carolina for a few different reasons. First, the
written evidence that doesn’t come directly from Equiano’s hand supports the
notion that he was born in Carolina (his baptismal record from St. Margaret’s
Church as well as the record from his Arctic expedition). Second, the circumstantial evidence
shows further discrepancies regarding the dates of his travels from America to
England. Third, although the text
in Equiano’s narrative is somewhat plausible to be true, it is more plausible
that he fabricated his story by reading authors like Anthony Benezet and
speaking with African slaves who had actually experienced being kidnapped from
Africa.
Equiano’s main objective in writing this narrative is to
educate white Europeans and Americans on the cruelty and inhumane treatment of
black slaves (and to establish that they are people, and not property or less
human), and so factual accuracy becomes a secondary concern. For example, although Equiano never
uses his name before the publication of his autobiography, in the text he says
that in his language his name “signifies vicissitude or fortune also, one
favoured, and having a loud voice and well spoken”[1]. This description matches up very well
to Equiano’s personality and his life, considering that he was a slave but
became an accomplished author who fought hard for a cause he believed in. Another extremely unlikely scenario to actually have
occurred is when Equiano was briefly reunited with his sister after their
initial separation. Though
entirely possible, this could more likely be an example of Equiano captivating
his audience by using emotional appeal.
This makes his story more interesting, his character more likeable, and
his ordeal just that much more appalling.
Those that believe Equiano actually was born in Africa use
this argument: his motivation was to abolish the slave trade, and therefore he
would not publish anything false for fear of falling into disrepute. The counter argument is this: if he did
not actually experience the kidnapping from Africa, he would not have had the
most compelling story for abolishing the slave trade. There is little doubt that Equiano had first hand experience
in slavery and the atrocities committed in its name, yet it was very important
to include the horrors experienced during the Middle Passage from Africa to
make his autobiography more compelling to his cause.
[1]
Olaudah Equiano or Gustavus Vassa, The
Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, Written by Himself,
The Bedford Series in History and Culture, (Bedford/St. Martins, Boston 2007),
52.
Hey Karl,
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed reading your post. I thought you made some great points about why Equiano might have lied about his birthplace and the evidences given (such as the baptismal record and muster role)to back it up. I argued in my blog that Equaino was born in Africa and still lean in that direction. I can see, however, why he might have exaggerated or lied about his experiences in Africa, such a seeing his sister again, to build a greater emotional connection with his audience. Overall, I do not see why Equiano would have risked lying about his birthplace, especially since his narrative was published in America within his lifetime.