Saint Catherine St.

Anonymous asked:

i always find it funny (and a little pathetic ngl) when people write 19th century european and specifically english historical fiction and try desperately to show these characters as “progressive” (i.e. outspoken whig party member etc) while avoiding implicating their characters in imperialist and colonialist actions despite being technically complicit just by virtue of living in the empire and benefiting as a citizen, like imo if you’re writing stories about these characters in this setting you just have to “accept” their sense of english exceptionalism at the very least. personally i notice asian diaspora especially brown 2nd gen immigrants do this a lot (makes sense maybe because they themselves benefit from american imperial hegemony despite often having “progressive” politics in general). which is why i find shows like bridgerton etc kinda funny bc back home these race traitors would hopefully all be jailed or executed by revolutionaries or something ngl and i can’t really feel for them regardless of whatever racism or prejudice they experience. (I like reading irish fans’ thoughts because of stuff like this)

but anyway this is all to say i especially find persuasion funny because this kinda happens with wentworth in canon despite austen herself being a 19th century upper class woman and not a writer on ao3 LMFAO. all the actions he’s involved with as mentioned in canon are restricted to direct engagement with the napoleonic empire only with the exception of the battle of st domingo… where he would be allied with haitian revolutionaries against french slavers 😭 this coupled with the fact that the next major british naval actions were all in the mediterranean for greek independence like navarino or anti-smuggling/slave trade actions along west africa (like francis austen) means you could credibly and conveniently say wentworth will never step into the colonies despite being a part of one of the largest colonizing forces in his time, it’s so absurd. i think it’s especially strange because other austen novels don’t escape this looming sense of empire and its acceptance/accompanying nationalism, if that makes sense - tilney’s “we are English, we are Christians,” darcy’s “every savage can dance,” even the treatment of roma in emma, in a sense. and yet in the novel wherein i most expected to see this sort of thing, it never properly came… i wonder if it’s because austen says “anne wanted…a much higher tone of indifference for everything but justice and equity.” or am i giving austen far too much credit here? i would really be interested in your thoughts if possible

nyantara answered:

mwah anon. im assuming we’ve all read edward said on austen in culture and imperialism re: mansfield park? its explicit where austen’s positioning is – fanny price (our heroine, who is relatively the moral centre considering the narrative’s contempt for everyone else in her house) asks her uncle about the slave trade in antigua that finances their living and the answer is a dead silence. it does not go beyond that for fanny price. we know (1) austen is pro abolition (2) she is aware of the slave trade in the west indies (slaves not emancipated till the 1830s after her death) and the plantations powered by it.

the reason you identify something of the sentiments of modernity in persuasion is because persuasion is a novel about modernity! it celebrates the merit based british navy where a man’s courage and competence can grant him the just deserts that profligate, inherited aristocracy excludes him from because of his birth. it is an endorsement of the new british world order, opposed to slavery but not opposed to colonial plantations, opposed to aristocratic rank as organising force but not opposed to class as a system, opposed to provincial chauvinism but not to imperial nationalism. its heroes are middle class and cosmopolitan. they have bravely fought for the nation. they collect foreign curios they selected on their own travels for their homes. this is the bourgeois revolution happening in literature. austen’s notion of appropriate moral sentiments towards those below the middle classes have always been nothing more than patrician and responsible charity throughout the books, see: anne doing so at kellynch.

i think you identify very accurately that wentworth is arguably relieved of having been a slaver. but i don’t think austen is intending to soften imperial plunder or its violence at all unlike the elisions being made w modern writers that aim for racial reconciliation. poor, disabled mrs smith’s concerns is that her dead husband’s “properties” in the west indies could be recovered from mr. elliot’s greed and negligence as the executor of the will. this revelation results in anne expressing sympathy for mrs smith, condemning mr. elliot and helping her retrieve said properties so she can be restored to her status. this is anne’s dispensation of justice. in 1817, everyone knows said properties in west indies are plantations. it is known that the “prizes” of navy men like wentworth come from war and the capture of enemy ships and seizing their loot. mr & mrs croft talk intelligently of their time in the east indies. the navy men are feted for risking their lives, being entrepreneurial and living in discomfort away from home at the frontier. these are colonial national logics and i don’t think austen is staking out a position opposed to them.

ok some fun citations

Keep reading

Saint Catherine St. — Do you think that the advancement and widespread...

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

More you might like