MDDM Ch. 72 Dixon and the slave driver

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

I think the differentiation between Master and monger
(owner v. merchandiser or middle-man) made in the first 
part of the sentence is significant. The Driver has no
interest in maintaining a long term relationship with the
"perishables" and seeks only to drive them to market and
turn a profit. It is conceivable that some not really "in the 
market" would be induced to purchase a slave in order
to free them from the Driver's whip. The Driver does
not care what one does with "the merchandise" after
the transaction, although if one is unsatisfied with the
product, the implication is to "throw them to the Dogs"
rather than expect one's money back.


In a message dated 8/24/02 11:22:22 PM, MalignD at aol.com writes:

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

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.) >>

The gamble, in one respect, is like any other made in 
the market place- a purely economic calculation- 
potential profit minus the mounting expenses of keeping
perishables alive and marketable another day. In
another respect, of course, the risk is entirely unique 
to the instituition of slavery, as opposed to horses
or tobacco.

Dixon's rationalization for not being in the market: "Give me
Engines, for *they* have no feelings of injustice" [yet]
and therefore, one assumes, one won't ever have to
trouble oneself with the Corollary- does not articulate
a sense of injustice or immorality on Dixon's part, merely
the problems associated with owning and using beings
capable of turning the tables. I.e., he is making logical
arguments against buying a slave and attempting to
deny his feelings, to which we are privy.

I don't know if the Driver has a feeling of longed for
atonement which Dixon helps him achieve by delivering
a sound thrashing, also, b/t/w providing Dixon an opportunity 
to articulate his own hatred of the Driver's behavior, and
of course, his taunts of Dixon. The potential for feelings
of injustice and rebellion are at least an inconvenience,
practically and economically, for he who deals in a self-
replicating perishables. He hates that, but probably
what he hates more is that he is not free to kill, injure
or otherwise maim them, without suffering economic
loss. After the unsuccessful day at the auction he
would like to, and he is struggling as much with his desire
to injure them, as Dixon is struggling with his own desire
to murder the Driver. 

There is a certain equivalency of murderous desires only
just barely held in check. The irony of the scene, which
I'm guessing you might be alluding to, is that both the
Driver and Dixon, in this unavoidable confrontation, 
complement eachother's needs. Dixon is uncomfortable
with his sins of both omission and commission w/r/t the
institution os slavery. While the Driver is trying to maintain
control so as not to kill his product, and injure his own
fortunes. Both help eachother in that regard. Even though
unshackled, some of the slaves will stay, but expenses
will be less- fewer mouths to feed. Dixon's guilt has been
transformed to anger and successfully tranferred to the
Driver, who coicidentally benefits.

There is a release of dramatic tension and a resolution of
sorts, but as one might expect, there is no net change
in the overall moral landscape.

I think that might be the gamble made by the adoption
of hatred, that whether successful or not, there will
be no change in the rules of the game. It is self-
rationalizing. The implicit gamble, of course, is that
the targets of hatred, given the opportunity, will
not respond with love, which can change the system.

In that sense, the Driver's gamble, at least w/r/t
Dixon, paid off.

regards