Stereotypes?

[Mickey]

I've read a lot of reviews that complain about stereotypes in this book. What I took away from the book was totally different. I was impressed with the variety of coping strategies that the slaves used as well as the variety of situations that slaves found themselves in. It seemed very well rounded to me. Any thoughts on this?

[Linda]

Stereotypes? Maybe if we judge it by the standards of a modern 21st century but for its time . . . cutting edge.

[Lobstergirl]

Yes, clearly it is packed with stereotypes. Cheerful child slaves who can't stop dancing and Stowe's assertion that all Africans have a talent for cooking are just two that pop into my head.

But it's from the mid-19th century so you kind of have to expect that.

[Mickey]

But Topsy wasn't cheerful and not all the Africans were employed as cooks or shown to have any talent in it. It's an interesting idea whether it can only be a stereotype if that is the only way everyone in that group is shown. For instance, slaves being happy with their lot. Obviously, there are many slaves in the book who were not: George Harris and Prue come to mind. As I've said before, there were a lot of different ways shown how people dealt with their enslavement, as well as the fact that the slaves did not have the same characteristics or reactions.

[Rich]

I agree with Linda. They are only considered stereotypes by today's PC environment. For the time the story was written, they are simply the characters of the day.

[Linda]

This book caused an absolute revolution in the north. It was a radical, cutting edge treatment of a very controversial subject. The woman who wrote it was told by Abraham Lincoln, "So you're the little lady who started this great big war." It's an example of the power of words to smash the status quo and change the world.

[Lobstergirl]

Topsy wasn't the only child slave who couldn't stop dancing - some of Aunt Chloe's children behaved the same way.

[Lobstergirl]

It's an interesting idea whether it can only be a stereotype if that is the only way everyone in that group is shown.

No. Stowe clearly outlined lots of different stereotypes. The dancing joyful jokey slave child is just one of them. Of course this stereotype has nothing in common with a character like Prue. She didn't just stereotype black people; there's also Ophelia's rigid and righteous Vermont Protestantism, which is contrasted to St. Clare's laidback, easygoing non-religiousness, and Ophelia's rigid and strict way of housekeeping, which is contrasted with the more gentle Southern way of keeping house.

Then you had Eva, the perfect, angelic, Christlike white child, who was incapable of sinning or even having a negative thought about anything. Eva was more allegory than real, of course.

[Mickey]

I don't think you can say that Topsy was portrayed as a dancing, joyful, jokey slave or that she was cheerful. She reminds me a bit of the character Jo in Dicken's Bleak House. Both were most likely created to shock the readers of that time with the depravity or ignorance that their station in lives reduced them to. Aunt Chloe's children lived with her and were cared for by her. They seemed affectionate and self assured as children do when they grow up with their parents and with their siblings. I wouldn't call Topsy either of these things.

This is part of the reason that I really do not see stereotypes in this book-because the book clearly has a variety of characters in each type. I almost think to reduce Topsy to the image of simply a dancing cheerful slave girl is putting a stereotype that Stowe didn't. There's real pathos in that character.

I think that people who say that there are many stereotypes are likely not looking closely at the book. For instance, there is not one stereotype of a Southern kitchen, because we see two and they are radically different from each other. Now, both of those kitchens are run by different women, but they also serve as a microcosm of the household in general with the St. Clare household run less smoothly due to management problems as well as different personalities. This would be the antithesis of stereotypes.

I feel the same about reducing Ophelia's journey through the story to her place of origin and religion. Ophelia is a character who changed dramatically throughout the story and to reduce that part of the story in that way is to oversimplify it. This isn't something that Stowe did. She is not showing a woman who is righteous and upright, because she comes to understand how cold and unfeeling she's been towards Topsy. I doubt many Northern women reading this at the time it was published patted themselves on the back over that portrayal. Also, I don't think it's a prevailing stereotype that Southerners are non-religious. They do call this area "the Bible belt".

Overall, I think that Stowe did a good job of showing all kinds of portrayals of slaves and slave owners. I don't see this book as having a bunch of stereotypes.

[Allan]

The book was not about kitchens, or stereotypes, or the northerners vs the southers. These were all merely illustrations used to point out that all sides turned a blind eye in some way or other for the sake of money, power, and the preservation of their way of life. It was intended to awaken a nation to a great injusice the same as Melville wrote in "White-Jacket'".
It posed the question, "How could any person, christian or otherwise, condone slavery." Especially in a nation built on freedom and the notion that " all men are created equal". It likened a slave being flogged to death to the crucifixion of Christ. Sorry, but if all you take away from this book are images of happy dancing slaves and Aunt Jemima syrup, you wasted youre time reading it.

[Mickey]

Allan wrote: "It posed the question, "How could any person, christian or otherwise, condone slavery." Especially in a nation built on freedom and the notion that " all men are created equal". It likened a slave being flogged to death to the crucifixion of Christ. Sorry, but if all you take away from this book are images of happy dancing slaves and Aunt Jemima syrup, you wasted youre time reading it. "

I agree. I am rather unnerved by the stubbornness of expectations when it comes to books. I've avoided Uncle Tom's Cabin for many years because of the idea that, while popular and topical at the time, it suffered from stereotypes, sentimentality, and the catch-all "bad writing". When I finally read it, I was amazed at how much better it was than I was expecting. I do not find any stereotypes at all, for example. Yet the charge persists even among those who have read it, and it makes me nervous to think how easy it is to discount a book and neutralize its true message through presenting it in a particular way.

It also makes me think about the insidiousness of the way we use the charge "stereotype". I've dealt with this idea before that a character who does not in some way defy common stereotypes reinforces the stereotype instead of showing a character. For instance, it reminds me of the way Bella Swan from the series Twilight is often called a stereotype because she moves in with her single father and cooks for him. I've been told this is an instance of stereotyping because it shows a female taking over domestic duties for a hapless male, the girl and her father quickly becoming the representative "female" and "male". (I actually experienced something similar when I was sent to live with my single dad at the age of 16, but no matter.) I have been told that Bella should have a hobby like karate or car tinkering (traditionally male pursuits) in order to round her out. But is this mania for making sure characters defy stereotypes not making a new stereotype? And does it not teach people that certain activities or proclivities are "wrong"?

How did people deal with being slaves? What is the "right" way to portray slavery? (And is there a right way?) What would a perfect book on slavery portray? Rage? Stoic acceptance? I think each might be a simplification.

I do think that making Uncle Tom a Christ figure was powerful and certainly (and radically) defied stereotypes of the day of what a black man was and what he could portray. That he didn't fight or rage (like George) is often considered a bad portrayal, but he is certainly not a "happy, dancing Negro". I think our current stereotypes, far from showing a lessening of a rigid idea of "how it should be shown", might just be showing a different philosophy.

[Devjohn1]

Mickey wrote: "I've read a lot of reviews that complain about stereotypes in this book. What I took away from the book was totally different. I was impressed with the variety of coping strategies that the slaves ..."

I completely agree with you. The way people form rigid expectations around books can sometimes obscure their deeper messages. Uncle Tom’s Cabin is often dismissed due to preconceived notions, but reading it with an open mind reveals its complexity and power. The debate around stereotypes is especially interesting—sometimes, in trying to avoid one, we create another.

Your point about how people expect characters to break stereotypes to be "valid" is spot on. It reminds me of how media editing tools like capcut can shape narratives—cutting, rearranging, and emphasizing certain aspects to fit a particular perception. In the same way, discussions around literature sometimes filter out nuances to fit modern expectations rather than engaging with the work on its own terms.

As for slavery’s portrayal, it’s a difficult subject, and expecting a single "right" way to depict it is limiting. Different narratives serve different purposes—some highlight rage, others resilience, and some focus on the moral and spiritual dimensions, like Tom’s Christ-like suffering. The key is to engage with these perspectives rather than dismissing them outright.

What do you think would make a "perfect" portrayal of slavery, if such a thing even exists?