Representing America - American Literature AP - Blog

Chris Rock's Kill the Messenger: The message on race

So…culturally, in America we try to avoid talking about race in some instances because well it can leave a really bad impression of people. Dr. Laura who was a radio personality said it on her show and got a lot of flack for it. Senator Doug Lamborn was highly criticized for calling President Obama a “tar baby”. I think that racism and the concept of racism is still an issue in this country because there are people's grandparents who have worked fields in the south and had to survive segregation. There are people’s parents who grew up in the Civil Rights Movement and saw the country change before their own eyes. After the civil Rights movement, Black people had a huge surge for whatever term they wanted to be associated with. Blacks were vehemently against any word that was used to refer to them when they were in slavery or segregation. The ironic part is the most offensive name that blacks were given is still in use today. Because of the civil rights movement and the constant awareness of race; there is a conception that white people should not use this word. Chris Rock addresses this issue in Chris Rock’s “Kill the Messenger”.

WARNING! : THE FOLLOWING VIDEO CONTAINS A LOT OF CURSING INCLUDING THE N WORD AND THE F BOMB. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CURSING OR THESE TWO WORDS, I STRONGLY ADVISE YOU TO FIND ANOTHER VIDEO TO READ AND/OR COMMENT ON.

 

With the civil rights movement came these walls or topics that Americans, specifically white Americans, couldn't discuss without setting up a mine field of emotion: Black stereotypes, race, what certain people can and cannot do. The biggest thing of all was what to call Black people. For a while people said, we want to be called Afro-American, then it was African-American, and then it was just Black. However, Black people regarded the following terms and phrases to be derogatory: The "N" Word, coon, tar baby, mammy, jungle bunny, jiggaboo, schwarze, boy, pickaninny, darky, buckwheat, Aunt Jemima, Spook, Porchmonkey, Kaffir, Colored, Spade, and Zulu. These are only a few terms.

I would have to say that Chris Rock addresses a stereotype about white people which is that people really don't know how to act around black people because they are afraid that they will offend us. This is shown with the stereotypical white people not being able to know when he/she can use the "N" word. This also points to the stereotype that black people are constantly think that all white people are racist and that they all want to bring us down. (hinted in the extra words to the song in the video). While these stereotypes aren't true, racism has become such an easy excuse for people to be angry at one another. For instance, I know that sometimes someone(we're just going to name them  would say, "Mrs. Q gave me an F on my paper and she gave Trevor an A. Trevor's paper was terrible! Mine was way better than his. I'm telling you that lady is racist." This is an example of how quick we as Americans are to jump to conclusions of race and how extremely confortable we are with pinning someone down as being a racist.

Now to answer Chris Rock's question, the answer is No. There are too many people who are sensitive to the word and that sensitivity indicates sensitivity to race on a certain level. There remains this sense of cautiousness when we address any one. I think that the video addresses this issue of race that White People are constantly trying to not offend black people for fear that we will react in an unreasonable manner. I think that this particular situation is very prevalent in some cases because a lot of music that teens listen to by black artists do contains this word. So I understand the frustration that someone can feel when faced with a situation like this.

I know that doing this blog entry on the "N" word was a little extreme but there remains the fact that even black people use it because hey we're black. My opinion is that we, Black people, shouldn't use the "N" word because we are putting ourselves down when your won race when in fact your own race is still trying to get people to stop using it because it is degrading.

The Protruding Nail Gets Hammered- A Reflection on Individuality

Throughout this semesters reading, I (and, evidently, my peers) have noticed a strong theme of individuality in each of the texts.

However, I feel like you can interpret this individuality in two ways, strange as that may seem. Each of the strong characters of our readings, prime examples being MacNolia, Hester, Douglass, and Holden, all seem to both benefit from, and be absolutely destroyed by, their individuality.

Hester, who is able to grow stronger under the weight of the blazing "A" and the scathing eyes of the village, is also worn down by the very existence of Pearl, and by Dimmesdale's untimely end. She retreats back into the edge of the forest, the most distant possible place while still being "inside" the town. Hester is able to assert her individuality, but it leaves her old, weary, and alone.

MacNolia was able to express her originality by being a highly intelligent black child, and an intelligent, strong, and capable black woman. However, by standing out, she draws the fear, disregard, and hate of her racist world. 

Douglass is much like MacNolia, a brilliant black individual with an insatiable thirst to gain a higher education, and to be free. But though he had proven himself to some Northern abolitionists, he still causes fear and anger to strike deep into the hearts of Southern slave owners. No one really knows what to do with a slave, former or otherwise, who can think for himself. He becomes an oddity.

Holden, whose brash and oftentimes irritating personality isolates him from his peers, is certainly a unique individual. His life views are so different from those of everyone around him, and he seems to simply slip through life without a set destination. But this also means that he has virtually no one and nothing he loves, and almost no one or anything to love him in return.

So I wonder- is being an individual such a good thing after all, when it often times seems to be tainted with loneliness and isolation? Should we follow the American ideal that individuality is the thing to strive for?

What about the Asian idea that interdependence is the way to go? That individuals are to be contained is the common way of thinking, and there are two sayings which translate this sentiment well: "The Protruding nail gets hammered", and "The Crying bird gets Shot".

So, which is truly better? A unique lifestyle, no matter how lonely or isolated you are? Or is it best to keep your head down and work with the group to a goal which benefits everyone?

Criticism... will it ever end?

All of the books weve read this semester have been criticisms of America at some point in history: The Scarlet Letter brought light upon fallacies in Puritan society, The Crucible showed us the flaws in Puritan society and during the Red Scare,  Frederick Douglass exposed us to the reality of slavery and racism before the Civil War, Huckleberry Finn poked fun at the ignorance of uneducated racists, The Catcher in the Rye emphasized the "cheesy-ness" of the 1900s, and MacNolia slapped us in the face with a real look at racism in America through the eyes of a black girl growing older. That's quite a list there, and I'd say weve been taken through a pretty good chunk of American cultural history just through reading all of these novels.

Reading all of this cultural criticism and satire got me thinking about the flaws of today's society. I know we're not perfect - America is full of capitalists, elitists, and racists, just to name a few. We might not be as religiously oppressive as the Puritans, but there are still religious battles fought today, sometimes violent ones. We abolished slavery and experienced the Civil Rights movement, but that doesn't mean that race isn't an issue, and it certainly doesn't mean that other types of oppression don't exist today. While we've been reading about imperfections in American culture of the past, we should also stop to realize all of the imperfections in today's world.

This is why I truly hope that future writers will write about us, that in a hundred years English classes will be reading about the flaws in our culture, just as we are doing right now. Our world is not perfect, and it most likely never will be. Criticism in the form of literature should last as long as this world does to open humanity's eyes to the mistakes of their ancestors and make future generations analyze the flaws in their own lives.

It Will Only Make Me Stronger

Throughout all the novels we have read this year, most of the main characters have similarities involving problems in their life that isolate themselves from society. However, in many of the novels, the characters are able to deal with their problems, not necessarily solve it, and eventually become an even stronger character because of their experiences.

John Proctor, from The Crucible, is one example of expanding as a character. In the beginning of the play, he is the guy that secretly cheats on his wife but is also loved by everyone in town. He has everything going for him, until later in the story, when the children accuse him of witchcraft. Instead of admitting to the deed and staying alive (also considered the coward-way out of his trouble), he decides to die with dignity and stay to the truth. The fact that he would die for the truth counters his previous actions in the story when he was cheating and lying to his wife. Therefore, he grew positively as a person when he chose to die with honor.

In addition, in The Scarlet Letter’s main character, Hester, developed into a character that the audiences sympathizes with by the end of the novel. Despite the fact that Hester had an affair with Dimmesdale and was punished by being forced to wear an “A” on her clothing, she improved as a character by helping the needy. Even the townspeople began to discuss if she should be allowed to remove the “A.” Furthermore, it is implied at the end of the novel that she left in order to give Pearl a better life. Throughout Hester’s life, she built up an improved image of herself and ended her life with others’ perceptions of her at their very highest.

During the semester, the lessons and themes of the book taught me that the easy way out may not be the right way. In order to make a difference, such as Douglass (went against slavery) and Proctor (chose death), the unappealing option is the path to take in life.

Diving Deeper

Over break, I was lucky enough to have the time to read "The Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison. I was inspired to read this greatAmerican novel after attending an English lecture concerning this particular book when I visited Reed College in Portland, Oregon over Thanksgiving break. Coincidentally, The Invisible man and Douglas's autobiography are very reflective of one another and touch on many of the same points. The Invisible man is much more conceptual and creatively well written than Douglas's autobiography but I encourage anyone who was interested in Douglas's compelling tale of his escape to freedom should read Ralph Ellison's novel in which one will experience that racial and social issues become far more twisted and complex than Douglas could have ever imagined in his time. Douglas himself is even mentioned in The Invisible Man when Ellison's unnamed protagonist, who has an office in Harlem, is given a portrait of Douglas to hang on his wall. The protagonist not only admires, but identifies with Douglas, as believe Ellison himself must have done.

Douglass's Argument

Frederick Douglass's narrative must have convinced a great deal of people to join the anti-slavery cause.  I thinkwhat really moved the people of the time was his eloquence.  Douglass was a former slave, yet he could speak like he was educated with the top men of the time period.  Slavery was built on the idea that the slaves needed the institution, that they were happier under slavery than they would be without it.  Douglass's narrative showed the American people that not only was slavery demeaning and wrong, but that slaves were no less capable than white men.  I think ultimately, it was Douglass's highly educated way of speaking that convinced his readers of the evils of slavery.  What do you guys think? 

Slavery= Some Agency

Obviously, slavery is very oppressive, but I was suprised that there were so many opportunities of agency for slaves in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. Towards the end of the book Douglass explains how he was able to earn a little bit of money for himself after learning how to caulk. Because slaves could earn extra money for themselves, they could run away, buy things for their families, and buy their freedom. Additionally, the slaves created close friendships between themselves and Douglass taught many of the other slaves how to read.

Another example of agency is when Douglass got in a fight with Mr. Covey and after refusing to let Mr. Covey whip him Mr. Covey stopped fighting and allowed him to leave without being punished. Slaves did have some power to resist their masters and rebel. Slaves also rebelled by stealing from their masters and working slowly.

Although slavery was full of oppression, the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass sheds light on the fact that slaves were able to have some agency and freedom within slavery.

Mr. Freeland

As Mr. Heidkamp pointed out the other day, the names of some characters in Frederick Douglassseem to correspond with the personality or principles of that individual. I have seen the technique used by other authors, and Douglass does not fail to display various complexities throughout the narrative. For example, the most blatant one is Mr. Severe. Not only does he "manifest barbarity" according to Douglass, he is a "profane swearer." In other characters, I recognized more subtle references. Upon reading the name Colonel Edward Lloyd, I picture a rather disciplined and wealthy Edward. Edward III actually, of English royal descent. In the Johnson's, I recognize a generic name lost among the other sons of John, yet unique in one respect, compassionate character. In Thomas Auld, I envision a strict and adamant figure, not any ordinary Tom or Tommy Boy. In Sophia Auld, I hear the soft wisdom of Hellenistic philosophy corrupted by marriage to another Auld. Hugh sounds rather uncertain, incapable of asserting himself as a stern figure. But this Hugh should not be affiliated with the mystical capabilities of Hugh Laurie from House. Hugh sounds disconnected from the control of Thomas. I do not mean to attack names, but phonetically these images recur whenever I read about that character. Finally, we met Mr. Freeland in the last chapters. According to Douglass, Freeland never whipped Douglass. I find it rather ironic that leniency and the free world are connected in this situation. Despite Douglass' hopes for equality in the North, he realizes prejudices and discontent are not lost at the border. Still, he encounters luxury, opportunity, and kind-hearted abolitionists in the North, in hopes of maybe a "free land" one day. I was wondering if anyone else drew these parallels or had some ideas of their own. I find them rather amusing.

Garrison's Rhetoric

Our edition of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave begins with a preface written by William Lloyd Garrison. It's not that long, so I read it to help me better understand Douglass. Since we are talking about rhetoric so much, I think everyone in class should realize that this preface is classic example of a rhetorical essay, complete with an introduction to the subject (Douglass-as-slave), arguments against slavery (on moral, judicial, scientific, and religious grounds), and a call to arms. Garrison was a journalist, social reformer, and a leading figure in the abolitionist movement, and I think his introduction is an excellent rhetorical strategy for the entire work. It is an endorsement of both Frederick Douglass and his story's veracity. There were many skeptics from both the North and South who could not believe that an escaped, uneducated slave could have written such a work, nor did they believe the detailed atrocities that were said to exist in the slave states.

Are humans superior?

Humans have ued their knowledge and skill over the years to create new things and improve our lives, so that now we live in an extremely modernized and polished society. We consider human-populated cities more advanced than animals' habitats, which we deem wild and primitive. We keep animals as pets and lock them up in cages to look at for our own entertainment. Clearly, we humans think ourselves superior to animals. And we are superior... right?

Yes, the way that humans have judged, exploited, murdered, and condemned our own kind is far superior to animals' acceptance of difference and variation in their own species.

Humans have come so far in life because we are suposedly the smartest and most skilled species, but does this mean that we are morally and ideologically supreme? I don't think it does. I've always found it interesting how humans are so caught up on such a superficial aspect as race. Animals, on the other hand, worry about things like survival instead of the appearance of their peers and the superiority of their own appearances. A black dog and a white dog are, and always have been, the same species, and neither is better or worse than the other in a dog's mind. So why is it that throughout history humans have constantly exploited or discriminated against a particular group solely on the basis of physical appearance?

So yeah, animals are "primitive" because they lack opposable thumbs. But is this really any lower than discriminating against our own kind because of physical appearances?

Are Slaves Survivors or Victims?

At first glance, the main idea of slavery involves masters' harsh, physical, and horrendous treatment of their slaves. Douglass repeatedly informs his readers of the inhumane ways the masters treated the slaves, both with physical and mental abuse. For example, Douglass's aunt was continually whipped for no particular reason, and Mr. Gore shot Demby in the face without any consequences.

However, despite all of the oppression, slaves on plantations managed to form their own communal independence that allowed for an establishment of resistance to slavery. This resistance, such as escaping to freedom in the north or purposefully not working at their highest capability in the fields, lead to eventual success by slaves in receiving their freedom. While this movement did take a long time (and certain forms of slavery still exist to this day), slaves in fact survived to tell their story and succeeded in creating a separate life outside the plantation during slavery. Therefore, I believe the fact that the masters treated them as victims motivated them to fight for themselves, which led to their survival. 

What do you think? Are slaves victims, survivors, or both?

Slavery in the 21st Century

Slavery was abolished in 1865, with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendement to the United States Constitution. Though racial prejudice lingered for quite some time, even into present day, slavery was largely extinct.

Or so say the history books.

In truth, slavery is at an all time high. There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the approximate number being between 12 and 27 million. Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations. Human trafficking is primarily for prostituting women and children into sex industries. It is the fastest growing criminal industry and is predicted to eventually outgrow drug trafficking. 

Think about what this means- there are people all over the world, here in America too, who are still slaves. There are people who live as Frederick Douglass and other black slaves lived, subsisting in squalid conditions, living with despairingly low expectations. To think that people somewhere, everywhere, are living lives like those we have read of...

What do you feel?