Theodosia And The Pirates Part 11: A Reading Guide

Reading guide for part eleven of Theodosia and the Pirates.
Reading guide for part eleven of Theodosia and the Pirates.

Mostly I have just been asking myself questions as I read this second novel in the series about Theodosia and her political alliance/ romantic partnership with Jean Laffite. However, he kind of annoyed me in chapter ten of the book, which is part eleven because there is a preamble. That is why I am calling this part eleven of the reading guide.

Jean Laffite is a street wise man who tells Theodosia she try and understand the Spanish the neighbors speak, even though it is not Castillian Spanish. He calls them good people, but this is where I disagree with his quote from the book.

“No. They are slaves who have lost their masters. They are like orphans. They were not freed, and they did not run away. Pablo Morillo killed everyone who was anyone, men, women, and children, just because Cartagena dared to defy Spain. The only ones who were left were slaves too lowly to bother with. Now they have no one to take care of them, so they fend for themselves. But as they were brought here from Africa less than a generation ago, this is not their home. They are not natives and cannot return to the land. They don’t know how best to feed themselves. The sack of Cartagena was as much a calamity for them as it was for their masters. Everyone was killed, and there was nothing to eat, rotting corpses everywhere. That is why they are so poor. But they are good people, and they hate Spain just as much as we do. They will help you, if you need help. You have only to ask”

pg. 202 Theodosia And The Pirates: The War Against Spain

 

This quote does not make me admire Jean Laffite’s view of slaves.  I know he is all about giving people liberty and freedom, but he believes that lowly slaves who were their neighbors were incapable of knowing certain life skills because they were new to a certain country. Well if you took the lord of the manor and blonked him in a potato field and told him to fend for himself out in the elements for nine months, he might struggle as well.

Laffite attributes the poverty of the slaves to the sack of Cartagena when their masters were killed, but what does he know about the cycles of poverty?  Many self-starters will get out of poverty no matter their humble origins, but it is much easier to stay in poverty than to rise out of it.  I wonder if Jean Laffite knows this.  He thinks masters need to teach slaves how to survive and learn life skills, which sounds a bit white man’s burden in philosophy, but not not unheard of considering the era he lived in.

However, Libertarians say they are all about free will and detest government programs that help people obtain food stamps, public education, and health care services.  Food, shelter and medical care are considered a form of servitude if provided for with tax payer dollars, but okay if furnished with private funds?  That is the one point where I will never be won over by the Libertarian camp.  Laffite thinks they are so poor because they are first generation slaves new to Cartagena, but what about white people who continue to live in poverty in Appalachia?  Poverty is not about who you are, but about being in a cycle of hopelessness.  People born into better circumstances will never struggle in ways an impoverished child has to on a daily basis.  That is just common sense.  Does Laffite or other Libertarians understand how hard it is to break free from the culture of poverty?

I do not agree with all the ways in which this woman dealt with her economic circumstances, but her essay explains the mentality of those stuck in a culture of poverty.  It is worth reading for those of us who have never had to deal with such issues.  There are poor people who cook healthy meals and who do not smoke cigarettes to deal with the grind of daily life, but what this essay demonstrates that often poor people make choices that seem bad to those with more financial means.  There is always a better way out of the blinding cycle of poverty, but I am not sure Laffite’s solution would be mine.  How is having a master who pays for all things and you must show your loyalty to any different than the government providing public assistance to those in need?  Both structures imply the impoverished segment of society is less capable of fending for itself, but these are simply financed differently.  I still believe that being a citizen of a society means we should all contribute to the greater good of our people, and provide opportunities for people to get a free education, and accessible health care.

Yes, that means people who can afford to might pay more taxes, but the amount they pay is minuscule in comparison to what minimum wage earner would earn.  I think people should work, but paying for a home and having affordable health care should not be out of reach.  I guess for these reasons I will never be in the Libertarian camp.  But Laffite believed that certain people in society needed guidance, so I do not think his rationale is all that different than government programs that want to do the same. It seems the only difference is in how these are financed.