Day of Tears

As socially vulnerable individuals, slaves were always subject to the threat of death from their enslavers. Lester depicts how slavery itself is akin to death, especially once slave owners sever the Black people’s familial ties. At the beginning of the novel, Will discusses how some of the slaves who were sold looked dead themselves: “[A] few, however, looked like they was dead, but their hearts hadn’t got the message yet” (5). Will equates slavery, especially its propensity for familial and natal alienation, to death. Implicit within this assertion lies the suggestion that familial ties and interpersonal relationships are the very things that keep humans alive. These key relationships separate those who are living form those who are dead.

Once a slave owner forcibly separates slaves from those they care cares about, that person might as well be dead. Without the maintenance of interpersonal relationships, life holds no meaning, as it is not enough merely to live it for our own enjoyment. Rather, Will suggests that happiness and the positive aspects of life all stem from the relationships we cultivate with people who will carry on our memory after we die. Will repeats this belief when Emma asks him about the slave auction, describing that the event was “like watching people die” (8). This statement reinforces the idea that the reason that slavery is like death is because of the loss of relationships. Will and Emma know they will never see these people again. The “death” becomes an emotional loss, one which has more long-term ramifications although the physical body remains.

Family plays a crucial part in the narrative of the novel. At the beginning, Will and Mattie believe that Pierce is a part of their family, or, at the very least, that he considers them part of his own family. However, through Emma’s sale, they learn that white people do not consider slaves to be a part of their families, no matter what past they might share. In fact, the author suggests that slavery is in and of itself inherently anti-family, which holds repercussions both for the separation of Black families as well as the hostilities between members of white families. In the Butler family, slavery becomes a familial legacy that pits family members against each other. Slavery creates dissention between white families due to its capacity to rip Black families apart, demonstrating that the repercussions of oppression reverberate throughout institutionalized power structures.

Separation of family members lies in the very nature of American slavery, which differentiated itself from previous forms of slavery in that any offspring of slaves were subsequent possessions of the slave owners. As possessions, slaves could be sold at the whim of their enslavers, as evidenced by the sale of Emma in the novel. However, Emma’s own definition of family changes, as she realizes that family is not necessarily solely extend to your blood relatives. After Pierce sells her to Mistress Henfield, Emma reflects: “[S]ometimes family ain’t blood but them what are by your side when you need somebody” (92). Because of the social alienation of slavery and the vulnerability of the Black body, the author suggests that Black communities had to make their own families, possibly creating a stronger bond with one another because of the shared trauma of their past. This bond stemming from trauma is witnessed in the relationship that develops between Emma and Joe, who make their own family after Pierce separated them from everyone else in their past.

As in many works of fiction, the author uses names throughout the narrative to indicate various aspects of identity concerning both Black and white characters. Honorifics, or names that indicate titles of esteem, are exclusively used in conjunction with the white slave owners at the beginning of the novel. The slaves even refer to the young Butler daughters as “miss.” This use of honorifics does not actually indicate any kind of esteem that the slaves hold for the white slave owners, but rather serves to reiterate the systemic imbalance of power necessitated by slavery. The use of honorifics is to remind slaves of their inferiority. Similarly, the slaves at the auction are often rendered as nameless, indicating their commodification at the hands of the racist white slave owners. In Chapter 5, Bob goes by “Slave 3” until a white buyer asks his name, demonstrating the imbalance of power and the subjective identity associated with slaves’ names. However, the author uses a similar approach with the character of the slave-seller, who is only called his true name, George Weems, by himself and Pierce. The author’s characters refer to the slave-seller by his occupation, perhaps so that the audience is forced to reconcile with the inhumanity of his profession itself. The slave-seller’s speech therefore can never be divorced from the racism and inhumanity of his actions.

The author also uses names to indicate a variety of other aspects of slave life, including the vulnerability of the Black body. The author demonstrates the fallacy of protection for slaves offered by their enslaver’s last names, as the audience comes to realize that slaves are never safe. However, by the end of the novel, the audience sees Emma consider the importance associated with names, especially as they concern one’s history. Names therefore represent an integral aspect of both individual and social identity throughout the novel. With these considerations, Emma chooses to adopt Mr. Henry’s name—an action that demonstrates both her autonomy and her respect for Mr. Henry’s humanity.