MDDM Ch. 72 Dixon and the slave driver

[MalignD at aol.com]

 Such an endless discussion.  My two cents (why not?).

The slaver's running into Dixon's fist is the equivalent of Dixon punching 
him.  Had Dixon intended to respond nonviolently, he might have grappled with 
the man or rolled his shoulder to protect himself.  But if the slaver ran 
into Dixon's fist and broke a tooth, one may fairly conclude that Dixon 
intended violence for, had he not straightened his arm and set his fist, he'd 
likely have broken or sprained his wrist.

I think also that Rob's equating the italicized "you's" with whipstrokes a 
very shrewd insight.  It had not occurred to me but, with the suggestion, I 
find it difficult to read the passage any other way.

Lastly, has anyone commented on this, on page 696:  

"The Driver's Whip is an evil thing, an expression of ill feeling worse than 
any between Master and Slave,--the contempt of the monger of perishable goods 
for his Merchandise,--in its tatter'd braiding, darken'd to its Lash-Tips 
with the sweat and blood of Drove after Drove of human targets, the metal 
Wires work'd in to each Lash, its purpose purely to express hate with, and 
Hate's Corollary,--to beg for the same denial of Mercy, should, one day, the 
roles be revers'd.  gambling that they may not be.  Or, that they may."

Any guess as to what is intended here?  I read this to mean that the 
corollary of hate--what naturally follows (for the hater?)--is to beg for a 
denial of mercy should the roles be reversed, gambling, in some instances, on 
the chance that they indeed will be reversed.  Which is to say, I think, 
hoping they will be.

I read this as saying that those who hate to the extent that, say, a slaver 
hates his slaves, perhaps begs for the whip, seeks someone to force on him 
the atonement he can't manufacture on his own.  If that is the meaning, it 
might be argued that, if one believes Dixon acted violently and didn't stay 
his own hand, he nevertheless offered the slaver a kind of longed-for mercy; 
i.e., his action was something more than an act of personal violence and 
momentary anger.  (I think, however, to read the incident thus would require 
believing the narrator's opinion identical to Dixon's and not a biased 
retelling.)

For what it's worth. If this has already been covered, my apologies.