Responding to Claudia Jones

Teuta, do mean cultural identity or identity as in one's self? Anyway, I don't think that a person's identity changes when one moves from one place to another. Culturally, they assimilated into the desired country. The person can either transforms or rejects the norms of the new country. Personally, it all depends on the individual.

Eddie Lang & Lonnie Johnson Guitar Duets 1928-1929

Hello class,

As we all are nestled away hard at work on our final papers I thought some music might be called for... Specifically, the guitar duets of Eddie Lang and Lonnie Johnson of which I spoke in class earlier this semester. I meant to post these at the time, but cruel fate had other plans for my efforts.

Anyhow, to refresh your memories, I brought up these recordings during our class discussion on Claude McKay's Banjo. The decade of the 1920s was a period of transition for the guitar. Amplification and electric guitars were not yet on the scene, rendering the guitar useless in the jazz bands of the day. The guitar simply could not be heard over the horns and percussion prevalent in the bands and orchestras of the day. As such, most jazz outfits contained a banjo player amongst their midst. The percussive sound of the banjo was able to cut through the din of the band unamplified, and as a result the banjo was much more common throughout the jazz world in the 1920s than we might suppose based on the jazz bands of the last eighty or so years.

Technology played its part in the rise of the guitar through the medium of records and the introduction of the microphone to the recording process. As the 78rpm record began to be seen as the standard format of the day, guitar players began to make recordings solely featuring the guitar. Many of the early jazz guitar players were skilled banjo players (as was necessary in making one's living at the time) who, as technology allowed, began to feature the guitar over the banjo.

Eddie Lang

Pick almost any thread of modern guitar playing and begin tracing it backwards and one inevitably arrives at two names: Eddie Lang and Lonnie Johnson. There were other players at the time making guitar recordings, but none elevated the guitar in prominence as Lang and Johnson did. When they came together at the end of 1928 to record together they were unknowingly making history. The recordings they made would go on to become much treasured documents of guitar artistry - the roots of many, many fruits.

The recordings were also among the first integrated jazz recordings ever made. Society not being quite ready for such a thing, however, the recordings were credited to "Lonnie Johnson and Blind Willie Dunn."


I've probably gone on too much already, but I wanted to attempt some context for the recordings presented here. Feel free, however, to cast context aside and simply enjoy the recordings on your own terms. Wherever you are, however you take it, I hope you enjoy! A little slice of heaven from my world to yours.

Lonnie Johnson

Lonnie Johnson and Blind Willie Dunn:

Two Tone Stomp b/w Have To Change Keys To Play These Blues (Okeh 8637, recorded 1928)

A Handful Of Riffs b/w Bull Frog Moan (Okeh 8695, recorded 1929)

Guitar Blues b/w Blue Guitars (Okeh 8711, recorded 1929)

Hot Fingers b/w Deep Minor Rhythm Stomp (Okeh 8743, recorded 1929)

Midnight Call Blues b/w Blue Room Blues (Okeh 8818, recorded 1929)

Claudia Jones

1. Although this work is paying tribute to Claudia Jones, I find the absurdity of America’s response to communism and immigrants overwhelming Claudia’s biography. This is because it’s pretty much the same approach to our present day ‘war on terror’. Another striking similarity between then and now is that the Caribbean Carnival took place in Notting Hill where a bloody riot took place against blacks immigrants, and now there is speculation that a mosque will be built in the place of the twin towers. What do we make of this? Are we that forgiving to take an ill-remembered place and turn it into a new forgiving one?  

2. The newest “undesirables” are the Muslims (235 reader)". I think it’s safe to say, that from the hype and the unifying fear of terrorists that claim to terrorize in the name of Allah, New Yorkers and Americans in general had their guards up. Our behavior was driven from fear and patriotism, so our actions felt justified then especially since our government was on high alert and encouraged Americans to do the same. Are we justified now after 10 years and an ongoing war? 

3. “Jones’s writings reveal that she was very clear about her membership in the Caribbean diaspora, as she was clear about her identification as an African American…” (230). Claudia strongly takes the identity of a "Negro Woman Communist" (232)  in the states, but she seems to have shifted her primary identity when she "voluntarily leaves" for London to a Caribbean African American. Do identities change or shift from place to place? Or do some parts of one's identity outshine the others depending on location and people? 

4.  "One way of seeing deportation is as the limbo-like existence of unbelonging." (242) If deportation is like a limbo-like existence of unbelonging, than being refused for citizenship must be a sort of judgment to hell. London and New York alike refused to make room for Claudia, but as Claudia says "taking space" (250) was what needed to be done. Is there a space or a place for the "deportee's" such as Claudia in the diaspora?

Richard Wright Discussion Questions

Hi all,

Apologies, but I only just connected to the class blog. Here are the discussion questions I should have posted before last week's class:

1) Richard Wright posits in White Man, Listen! that “the Negro American is the only American in America who says: ‘I want to be an American.’” Has this shifted since the time of Wright’s writing? Are there now other groups who see America as “something outside of him and he wishes to become part of that America”?

2) Wright speaks in broad terms concerning the elites of Asian and African countries - are Wright’s comments too removed from “everyday people” to have an impact? Similarly, are Wright’s thoughts expressed too broadly to have impact? Wright’s audience seems to be those in positions of power on both sides of the discussion (white Europe/colored Asia and Africa).

3) While reading Wright, I thought of James Baldwin’s David in Giovanni’s Room. I thought that David’s behavior reflected in a sense a psychological reaction of an oppressed person. Through this lens, Giovanni’s Room becomes not an anti-gay piece of literature, but rather a portrait of the result of a type of oppression and thus a criticism of the oppression rather than the oppressed. Would you agree or disagree with these thoughts?


Again, apologies! No disrespect intended.

Eric

Richard Wright

1. Richard Wright seems to have appointed himself as a crusader for Asians, Africans, and African Americans, and my question is was his quest to ambitious? His tone too angry and not focused?

He left America due to racism he encountered, which he recorded brilliantly in Black Boy and Native Son. However, his post writings weren't as successful as his previous writings. My assumption is he lost touch with his African-American audience by taking on a task that was less familiar to him. James Baldwin had eulogized him by saying "Africa and Europe had failed him" but Richard Wright in some ways failed his African-American audience. Ebony magazine had refused to print his "I Choose Exile", believing it would not resonate with his African American audience.

2. Richard Wright wanted to get away from being a Black man in America but he was consumed with being a black man in France. Richard Wright does marry a white woman while ranting about the injustices of the white man. Wright's wife, surely had a white father and how did he reconcile the two? Was he looking for acceptance? Was Richard Wright running to find himself or running to get away from himself?

3.According to Tyler Stovall, Richard Wright traveled to Africa and felt a disconnect. He was unable to relate to their customs or way of life. In fact, he was disappointed that he was regarded as a mere Westerner or American. Was it a contradiction for Wright to speak about or for the African?

4. It is mentioned that Wright's writings suffered while overseas, and James Baldwin's writing flourished. Why do you think these two writers had contrasting experiences? My assumption is James Baldwin stayed in his lane and wrote what he was well versed. He also wrote about the human condition as well as racism. Wright was too political and angry and it get in the way of his writing. He changed political parties several times: he was a communist and later a marxist. Baldwin explored ways to bring black and white together through compassion and empathy through Giovanni's Room and Another Country, while Wright just remained angry.

White Man, Listen!

Okay, here we go:

1) It seems that Wright does not hold the traditional beliefs of the Asian and African people in very high regard, instead thinking that the way forward for them has more to do with following the ways of the Western educated elites. Early on in the piece he states, in reference to those who still believe in the traditional ideas, "they are the doomed ones, men in a tragic trap. Any attempt on their part to wage a battle to protect their outmoded traditions and religions is a battle that is lost before it starts." (652) Do you think Wright is being too harsh in essentially tossing out these traditions and values? Can't there be something of use within these traditions that Wright is missing? What about his use of the word "outmoded" in discussing these traditions?

2) "The more Westernized the native heart became, the more anti-Western it had to be, for the heart was now weighing itself in terms of white Western values that made it feel degraded." (656) This quote makes me again think of my previous question and Wright's ideas on the outmoded nature of traditional beliefs because in many ways by rejecting them is he not becoming that which he seems to speak of in the quote? How do you come to terms with this contradiction?

3) Wright's notion of Acting was something I found rather interesting, particularly the way in which Wright talks about the elite of Asia and Africa joining forces with the minority section of white society if only for a means of "climbing out of its ghetto." Essentially using these groups as a means of rising in society. Do you find this troubling? The way in which these people must forever be two different people depending on who they are around. And also do you see this as an effective way of creating change? Wright also points out a similar form of Acting occurring within the religions brought to these people from Europe. How do you come to terms with that as well?

4) Communism is mentioned fairly often within the text and I wonder if this is something that on some level dates the work, giving it over to a particular time and place in history. Do you agree or can you see Communism as standing in for something that will always be present within this struggle? A presence that will always seem to exist in opposition to traditional Western beliefs.

Encore Une Chose

I was fascinated by the religious references in part two of the novel. They were not only vivid but increased with intensity and repetition as the conclusion of the novel came closer. Does anyone have any opinions in this matter?

Giovanni's room part 2

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2011

Giovanni's room part 2

Giovanni's Room part 2

"The beast which Giovanni had awakened in me would never go to sleep again; but one day I would not be  with Giovanni anymore. And would I then, like all the others, find myself turning  and following all kinds of boys down God knows what dark avenues, into what dark places?"(Baldwin,84).  Giovanni, Guillaume and Jacques have embraced their sexuality; yet, these figures are portrayed in the novel as either desperate, hideous, or isolated. Considering the state of these men in the novel is David's  fear of accepting his homosexuality justified?

Giovanni's room is not only a physical place in the novel but is also its title. What is the significance of the room is the novel? David says 'It became, in a way, every room I had ever been in and every room I find  myself in hereafter will remind me of Giovanni's room"(Baldwin, 85). Is the room simply a memory or is there more to it? Why does David spend so much time describing specific details about the room?


"I resented  this: resented being called an American(and resented resenting it) because it seemed to make me nothing more than that, whatever that was; and I resented being called not an American  because it seemed to make me nothing."( Baldwin, 89) These lines reflect David's thoughts about Giovanni calling him an American. What is the significance of being an "American" in the novel? What weight does this title hold if any in David's life?  Is being an American in any way connected to David's ideas of man hood?

Hella is significant as David's fiance . However outside of  this position, what is her role in the novel? Is  her adventure in Spain, significant in anyway to our understanding of the novel?

Giovanni's Room pt. 2

Hey Guys, pretty late with these. Got stuck in the Atlanta airport for a long time.

1. Jonathon (maybe that's how you spell your name?) mentioned last class that he looked at David's whiteness as allowing him to be a sort of "everyman". Does thinking about passages like "My face is like a face you have seen many times. My ancestors conquered a continent, pushing across death-laden plains until they came to an ocean which faced away from Europe toward a darker past. " (3) or "He (Giovanni) said they all looked alike...At home I could have distinguished patterns, habits, accents of speech - with no effort whatever: now everybody sounded, unless I listened hard, as though they had just arrived from Nebraska." (89) as well as the continual descriptions of white people's complexions (Giovanni's in particular, Joey's also on p.6) as "dark" make David's whiteness something beyond a universal and into an aspect of Baldwin's portraiture? What about all the other mentions of "dark" (above, for example) in the book? It recurs frequently, often to signify the frightening, the unknown: caverns, hallways down which one might follow armies of boys. Do American (or international) race relations have anything to do with this book? Would I ask that question if Baldwin weren't an African American writer? Could this change our reading of statements like "...for nothing is more unbearable, once one has it, than freedom." (p.5)

2. How does the narrative treat homosexuality? What kinds of examples (beyond, but including David and Giovanni) of homosexual love and sex are we given? Are homo and hetero relationships portrayed differently? What about Hella discussing her idea that a woman must have a man (p.126) compared to the later scene in which David accuses Giovanni of trying to make a "girl" out of him (p.142)? Is the narrator simply David or is there, as I think Tim was getting at last class, another disclosing consciousness at work here?

3. What is happening with time? In particular, what's happening with perpetuity in the scene of the hetero couple skipping through the roses on Giovanni's wall (see p. 86, 118, 140)? The frequent tense shifts? The structured availability of knowledge (we know Giovanni will die from the outset, we don't know his child died until the end nor do we know why he will be put to death). What about the strikingly (to an American) anachronistic method of Giovanni's execution? Guillotine? Really?

Giovanni's Room Part Deux

It seems that it is very much impossible for David to accept the strange package that love comes in. What, in David's mind, are the tragic outcomes of his love affair with Giovanni? How does the final conclusion of the novel negate or diminish David's original ideas of tragedy?

The author possesses a keen sense of lyricism in his writing. I find his writing a bit haunting. How do you feel about it? Do you believe it possess a haunting lyricism? Take a look at these passages:
1. "perhaps home is not a place but simply an irrevocable condition" (pp.121)
2. "descending night...protected them against the darkness and the long moan of this long night...and wonder, like me, how they had fallen out of the web of safety. What a long way, I thought, I've come-to be destroyed." (pp. 137)
3."But the end of innocence is also the end of guilt." (pp.148)
4. "And at moments like this I felt that we were merely enduring and committing the longer and lesser and more perpetual murder." (pp.157)
5. "...watching, in the window pane, my reflection, which steadily becomes more faint. I seem to be fading away before my eyes-this fancy amuses me, and I laugh to myself."(pp.220)

There is a serious disparity in David’s story about what makes a home and what a home consists of? How is Giovanni’s room- the room Giovanni and David inhabit for a short time, exhibit a true home for David and/or Giovanni? Giovanni envisioned a safe nest for himself and his lover, while David saw something very different. In retrospect what is Giovanni’s room indicative of ?

NEMLA Panel Proposal

Hey all --

I've just submitted a panel proposal for the 2012 NEMLA Convention in Rochester, NY. The panel is entitled "Infighting and Rival Texts in 20th Century African-American Literature." It has not yet been approved and I won't know if it will be until later May. If one person would like to co-chair such a panel with me and help handle the glamorous responsibilities that accompany such a job (emailing respondents, reading abstracts, promoting the CfP, etc.), please get in touch with me early on so we can discuss that possibility. The panel description is below.

From early on in the Harlem Renaissance, many black writers knew for a fact that there was a New Negro, but most differed on the nuances when creating such a character from text. African-American Literature in the early 20th century was marked not only by the spirit of cooperation and the feeling of community, but also by infighting and fevered debate over what constituted a proper direction for the movement(s). This panel seeks to reignite discussion over the ideas and histories of these debates between black writers during the formative and fluid period of 1920-1960. Divisive texts will be highlighted and discussed. By evaluating not only the texts, but also the historical reception of the opposing ideas, we may track how the representations of competing ideologies have been altered or filtered over the ensuing years. Papers should not merely chose sides or say who was ultimately correct or incorrect in such debates, but should allow for some measured or reasonable analysis of the competing arguments through synchronic and/or diachronic lenses. Some topics, debates, and divisive texts include, but are not limited to:

W.E.B. DuBois and Claude McKay

W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey

James Baldwin and Richard Wright (‘Everybody’s Protest Novel’)

Carl Van Vechten’s *Nigger Heaven*

Countee Cullen and Langston Hughes

Claude McKay’s *Home to Harlem* or *Banjo*

Eldridge Cleaver and James Baldwin

Richard Wright and Zora Neale Hurston

The purpose of such a panel is to provoke a reappraisal of plurality during this period. Our interest is in exhibiting and discussing this widely varied canon prior to its representation as being homogenized in later eras. Further, we are seeking deeper understanding about the differences in opinion that have informed our broader opinions about African-American Literature in contemporary times.

The Queer Theatre: Questions on Giovanni's Room

Hi everyone. Hope you're enjoying Giovanni's Room as much as I am. I finished it, but I will try to limit my comments to the first half:

The protagonist David is quite often confronted with versions of his own queerness that he despises and he writes about the queer scene in Paris with a less than favorable tone. Some objects of his scorn include Guillaume and Jacques' and their 'fairy' mannerisms, the rent boys such as the skinny Yves (who is mentioned twice in the novel), and the 'mummy' transsexual at Guillaume's bar, which I will discuss further on. It is not merely the expository or self-reflective scenes that exhibit this quality; the scenes written in dialogue intensely focus on the most despicable or pretentious conversations from the queer scene, David and Giovanni included. One such weightless exchange occurs between Giovanni and Madame Clothilde at her restaurant:

"This is Monsieur Guillaume," [Giovanni] tells her, and with the most subtle flattening of his voice, "my patron. He can tell you if I am serious."
"Ah," she dares to say, "but I cannot tell if he is," and covers this daring with a laugh. (52)*

There is evidence that lines like these could either be examples of David's self-hating gay identity, or simply the fanciful (yet meaningless) musings of youth abroad (the conversations regarding differences between Americans and French later on in the novel speak more to this observation). And let us not forget, Giovanni and David are in the same boat, so to speak, as neither is a native Frenchman, though Giovanni seems to play the part a little more admirably. Still, is it a parody of queerness that is on display or a critique of youthful folly?

The most striking example of the horror David feels comes in his description of the 'mummy' or 'zombie' that approaches him at Guillaume's bar. "the thin, black hair was violent with oil [...] the eyelids gleamed with mascara, the mouth raged with lipstick. The face was white and thoroughly bloodless with some kind of foundation cream [...] The shirt, open coquettishly to the navel, revealed a hairless chest and a silver crucifix [...] He wore buckles on his shoes." The 'mummy' asks David if he is interested in the barman, to which David recoils into his realm of privacy, of guarding secrets: "I don't see how that concerns you" (40). The deathly queen is like an apparition, taunting David with a reading of fate and then disappearing from the novel like a ghost: "You will be very unhappy. Remember that I told you so" (41).

#1) Given the above context, discuss the dialectic that occurs between embracing queerness and shunning it throughout the novel. Consider this problem: did queerness exist as a relevant form of social identification at this time or is it being invented along with the literature itself? How is David's embittered struggle for selfhood and acceptance exemplary of the invisible queer's greater struggle for social acceptance (or, if you want to put the analysis in the African-American box, how could this struggle speak to all who are marginalized and problematize the privileging of social movements?)

Since the environmental norm of this novel is in the queer quarter of Paris and not on the streets of straight-laced New York, David's character and his discomfort with his queerness causes him to be alienated with his novel. However, since he can also not conform to heteronormativity (and ultimately loses Hella late in the book), his alienation spirals into self-loathing. David's experience tells him that he has a choice of social conformity and that the choice is to be Jacques or Guillaume (despicable old queers) or his father. Though this novel was published prior to the 60s counterculture, it temporally explodes with New Left and poststructural leanings because it refuses to seat David or resolve his social schizophrenia. Even the marginal characters are described in such variance and depth (yet ambiguity) that they can not be resolved as types. Read, for instance, how he describes the counter and cashier ladies of Paris:

"They are neither ill- nor good-natured, though they have their days and styles, and they know, in the way, apparently, that other people know when they have to go to the bathroom, everything about everyone who enters their domain. Though some are white-haired and some not, some fat, some thin, some grandmothers and some but lately virgins, they all have exactly the same, shrewd, vacant, all-registering eye; it is difficult to believe that they ever cried for milk or looked at the sun; it seems they must have come into the world hungry for banknotes, and squinting helplessly, unable to focus their eyes until they came to rest on a cash register" (50-51).

Within this passage, the author reaches for a type that itself is unattainable. The counter ladies of Paris are themselves inimitable as types, but cannot be described to their essence, since "some [are] grandmothers and some but lately virgins." In another passage, David describes the pluralistic nature of "hate" and "love" emotions as he considers how Giovanni's love is changing him for the worse. He writes, "there opened in me a hatred for Giovanni which was as powerful as my love and which was nourished by the same roots" (84).

#2) Given how the author destabilizes the characterization of types in the novel (save for perhaps the gay queens), is the novel adopting a poststructural or chaotic attitude toward social phenomena? How do you reconcile this evidence of early postmodernity with the author's optimism and altruism/absolutism in other passages (see "men can never be housewives" on page 88 or the privileging of privacy throughout)?

Finally, let's discuss form and style. The "chronotope" (to use a really pretentious Bakhtin term) of this novel resides within a formal device, one that shifts back and forth from the present, where David resides and writes (with self reflection), to the distant past of David's childhood and first sexual experience, to the not-so-distant past of his tragic Parisian love affair with Giovanni. This device resembles the staging or blocking of scenes and uses the lens of revision and self-reflection -- hindsight, if you will. The latter temporal place makes up the bulk of the novel and, thus, can be regarded as the seminal event or primary "scene." As we shall see, "scene" becomes a very important word to this novel.

The "scene-ing" of this novel and the handling of the exposition relates strongly to the novel's overt references to theatricality. Consider the 'mummy' queen from earlier, who is heavily made up, dressed as something she is not; the author clothes and costumes her in a manner very reminiscent of Genet's costuming in Our Lady of the Flowers. Further, the narrative itself can be read as a stock gesture -- if you wanted to read it as a genre, it is that of the "star-crossed lovers" variety intermingled with the (sexual) bildungsroman. It plays out with the air of romance and theatricality and the dialogue is prevalent, carrying the bulk of scene description (particularly upon the first meeting of Giovanni and David).

But the writing goes further than these two structural strategies to the point where the characters themselves cannot help referencing the theatricality of it all. Constantly, David refers to the queer quarter as a "scene" or Paris itself as a "scene." David discusses the possibility of Hella finding out about his queer relationship as he and Giovanni lie in bed together. Giovanni refers to David's sensibilities, his dramatizing of events as "English murder mysteries [...] as though we were accomplices in a crime"** (81). One senses that in Giovanni's eyes, David is complicating his own life by refusing to acknowledge an intangible desire, but apparently nothing has changed in the present iteration of David and he ends his tale as an unreconciled and alienated character.

#3) How does the careful and meticulous nature of scene-blocking in this novel relate to the theatrical characters and "scenes" within the novel? What might the author be saying about theatricality, role-playing, rooms, scenes, home, and identity? How does the temporal fluctuation in the novel work to its benefit or success as a narrative?

Wow. WAY TOO MUCH WRITING. Well, I hope you enjoyed my ridiculous rant. There's so much more I want to say about "home" and "rooms," but it's all second half stuff and I have to save it for the people next week... to quote Charlie Brown, "WAAUUUGHHH!" Also, these questions are (for the most part) really dense multi-part ones so I decided to only do three. I hope that's acceptable.

*I feel like there are better examples of this, but I'm struggling to find them right now.
** He also refers to David's behavior as being an "English melodrama" (82).

Discussion questions for Giovanni's Room

1. Why do you think James Baldwin chose to make his central character a white male, and furthermore to have that character narrate his novel?

2. Although sexual orientation and questions of normative pair bonding are central to Baldwin's text, race is essentially marginalized. How do you account for this?

3. How might David's own family structure be a reflection of the ideas expressed in your response to question 2?

4. How do you reconcile these choices with Langston Hughes' insistence that one must be a Negro writer first, for to do otherwise is to deny one's own true nature?

5. As she inspects the house he has been renting from her, the caretaker says to David:

We had three sons. Two of them were killed in the war. In the war too we lost all our money. It is sad, is it not, to have worked so hard all one's life in order to have a little peace in one's old age and then to have it all taken away? It almost killed my husband; he has never been the same since. [. . .] But our last son, he lives in the North; he came to see us two years ago, and he brought with him his little boy. [. . .] They stayed about ten days and we felt young again. (68-69)

Why do you suppose that Baldwin juxtaposes the caretakers' sons and money in this manner?

James Baldwin's "Giovanni"

NOTE: These are my questions for the week of April 14th.

1. What are the implications of Baldwin writing from a white first person perspective during his time, and in context to the novel?

2. Baldwin writes, “Joey’s body was born, was sweaty, the most beautiful creation I had ever seen till then.” To the reader it can seem as white exoticism, but Baldwin continues to write, “I would have touched him… but something stopped me… perhaps it was because he looked so innocent lying there… he was so much smaller than me; my own body suddenly seemed gross and crushing and the desire which was rising in me seemed monstrous,” (9). What does this relation say about the Baldwin’s white/black dynamic historically, politically, and sexually.

3. On page 34 Giovanni says that American’s believe to much in the constraints of time, rather than the beauty of pain, death, and love (the essence of life). “Time is just common, it’s like water for a fish. Everybody’s in this water, nobody gets out of it, or if he does the same thing happens to him that happens to the fish, he dies. And you know what happens in this water, time? The big fish eat the little fish. That’s all. The big fish eat the little fish and the ocean doesn’t care.” What does this symbolize for Giovanni, between the differences of the East and the West?

4. On pg 55 Guillaume tells David that he is lucky he is going through “this” young and not when he is older. What does this signify? Is this instance saying homosexuality’s an experimental phase?

"The Price of the Ticket" documentary

When watching the film, I kept thinking that although there was so much adversaries towards James Baldwin, he never stopped being happy. Even though he was angry at racism, people being inconsiderate, or just prejudices in general, he provided happiness for the people around him. I found this to be uplifting, and to send a truly optimistic message for humanity in the future. I feel that Baldwin wasn't only discussing race relations, but was talking about the human condition in general, and our resistance to a powerless society. But with Baldwin's urge for happiness, he was showing how a structure where power was not the most important factor, but rather a commonality and love for humans' alike could succeed. It was his shared knowlege with his peers, that allows us to become a more humanistic society.

Native Son a Reading

I am sorry for the blubbering questions in my previous post, I have been Working long shifts and the Coffee crash happened in the most inopportune time. here are the questions, hopefully clearer.

I will start with the general question that caught my eye in the first section. Baldwin talks of the deliberate Isolation how do we as current readers view this idea. Specifically that how "Past humiliations should become associated not only with one’s traditional oppressors, but also with one’s kinfolk" (121). This then brings to mind our essay quote of the "Bad nigger". This for me read that the African Americans rather isolated themselves then confront the issues of their humiliation. In the sense that they avoid one another based on the fact they see the things they were put through in their brothers eyes. Is this the case? Is this then what Baldwin was going through himself? Was this a possible reason why he then need isolation to write. Why he traveled the world away from the America’s?

Later Baldwin mentions the way Freedom of Europe stresses the American so much that all he can do is pack his bags and run for home (127). But as we saw this was not the case some ran further. Like Baldwin himself some students ran to Russia or India, anywhere that was not home or as I see it, anywhere that was home. By this I mean that they traveled the world to find a home not feeling comfortable anywhere, those that did return home simply settled for the lesser of two evils, living imprisoned or living searching for a home.

Here I disagree with Baldwin; I don’t think Europe exhumed so much freedom that the student wanted the structure of home. Rather it exhumed the freedom to explore further. Europe was not a place to flee to, but rather a gate way to more opportunity.

Specifically when he discusses how all students are the same and when American come to understand the French they realize both know no more than the other. Yet it is here then that the realization of equality must hit. And though Baldwin states that it is at this time they discover their own country. But I feel this is not the case, I do not feel that they locate their own country, but rather that all countries are each others. Europe brings the realization that all land is the same in its simplistic form. It then allows for those that achieve this realization to settle anywhere as they feel the comfort to be at home. It works in France as that is where they felt the most appreciated, as least the most after living in the Americas.

My final question is quite simple and I ask it to illicit a response. We have spoken of Paris streets, taverns, clubs and pubs. We have defined these things as Paris. But by Baldwin's experience are the prison section and the prison system not France? I felt a metaphorical story here speaking of everything that is to come and be in France. Or in other words the French Experience.

Native Son

I will start with the general question that caught my eye in the first section. Baldwin talks of the deliberate Isolation how do we was current readers view this idea. Specifically that how "Past humiliations should become associated not only with ones tradtional oppressors but also with one kinfolk" (121). This then brings to mind our essay quote of the "Bad nigger". This for me read that the African Americans rather isolated themselves then confront the issues of humiliation. But I also feel that Baldwin himself is trying to make this point.

Later Baldwin mentions the way Freedom of Europe stresses the American so much that all he can do is pack his bags and run for home (127). but as we saw this was not the case some ran further. Like Baldwin himself some students ran to Russia or India anywhere that was not home or as I see it, anywhere that was home. Here I disagree with Baldwin, I dont think Europe exhumed so much freedom that the student wanted the structure of home. rather it exhumed the freedom to explore further. Europe was not a place to flee to, but rather a gate way to more opportunity.

Specifically when he discusses how all students are the same and when American come to understand the French they realize both know no more then the other. yet it is here then that the realization of equality must hit. And though Baldwin states that it is at this time they discover their own country. But I feel this is not the case, I do not feel that they locate their own country, but rather that all countries are each others. Europe brings the realization that all land is the same in its simplistic form.

My final question is quite simple and I ask it to illicit a response. We have spoken of Paris streets, taverns, clubs and pubs. we have defined these things as Paris. But by Baldwin's experience is the prison and the system not French. I felt that the incite to the process of arrest and trial to verdict was a depiction of the true Paris.

Baldwin, Notes on Native Son

I figured the most methodical way of presenting my questions and concerns would be to break it down into the sections like Baldwin presents.

“Encounter on the Seine: Black Meets Brown”

From the very beginning Baldwin states, “In Paris nowadays it is rather more difficult from an American Negro to become a really successful entertainer than it is rumored to have been some thirty years ago” (117). Let us unpack the sentence. First, Baldwin is presenting a difference between being an “American Negro” during the 1920s and 1950s. As we have seen in Stovall, a lot has change for the American Negro in Paris. It’s not so much about jazz, art, and the primitive veil that was attributed to African Americans. It’s not even about finding a universal blackness as our previous readings have suggested. It’s more about the “vast majority of [American Negro] veterans studying on G.I. Bill” and their identity. (118) Secondly, the use of the word “rumored” is quite interesting. Not only is Baldwin disconnecting himself from this past, but he seems to be doubting the truth the past contains. This is probably attributed to his idea that the “American Negro in Paris is very nearly the invisible man” (118). Why does Baldwin see the American Negro as the “invisible man?” What brings about “the battle for his own identity” that Baldwin points out on page 121? What is the result of this “battle”/What does the American Negro discover (i.e page 123)? Baldwin has a vendetta with the past. What do you make of his connection and constant reference to the past? What does the past consist of? In other words, to Baldwin, what is the past- Africa, America and/or Europe?

“A Question of Identity?”

Real vs. Imagined. The “legend of Paris” is defined as the possibility of finding one’s identity. However, Baldwin seems to be skeptical about this legend. Paris is the location that deconstructs the American. This deconstruction leads a discovery of identity; “from the vantage point of Europe he discovers his own country” (137). How does this process of finding identity differ from the identity issues we have encountered in past readings? How does Baldwin perceive Paris? As real, imagined or a distraction making them “lose what it was they so bravely set out to find?” (135) If imagined, then Paris is no longer a “safe haven” many African American sought, instead it becomes something more concrete. If a distraction, then Paris is a beloved image we continue to stare at until we “snap out of it.” What actions is Baldwin suggesting should be taken to discover our identity? Does it work?

“Equal in Paris”

(The more personal section. Get to know a little more about Baldwin). In the previous section, Baldwin states that African American (specifically the American students) were in “social limbo.” His incarceration is his “social limbo” moment. Being within this legal system he discusses the distance he feels from French society/culture and connection with American society/culture. For instance, he states, “I began to realize that I was in a country I knew nothing about, in the hands of a people I did not understand at all ... I am not speaking now of legality ... but of the temperament of the people with whom I had to deal” (144). Baldwin’s “old weapons” could not save him from his current situation nor his American identity. At some point identity has nothing to with being Black; instead, it has to do with being American. Baldwin writes, “The question thrusting up from the bottom of my mind was not what I was, but who” (146). Simply fascinating! There is a couple things happening at this moment: Is being Black the lesser of two evils, or is being American the lesser evil in his current situation? Baldwin is grappling this issue. He is aware that the French are developing an idea of him based on his Americanness (not his Black identity). Is Baldwin afraid of the unfamiliar? How does he connect the unfamiliar with the familiar (French with American)? What does Baldwin discover about being human (assuming that Black, American, French, etc. are erased categories) towards the end of the section with the “universal laughter?” How does this “universal laughter” reflect the universality of conditions we encounter as humans? Is it safe to say that Baldwin has found the true meaning of identity?

“Stranger in the Village”

(My favorite section). “It did not occur to me- possibly because I am an American- that there could be people anywhere who had never seen a Negro” (159). This sentence hit close to home. It had not occurred to me, until I went to college, that racism existed (or that there was so much prejudice within the Latin community). Yes, I did live a sheltered life, which perhaps explains a lot now. Baldwin, in a way, deals with this idea of “sheltered people” who are unaware of, for example, the use of the word “Neger.” For Baldwin it “echoes” his past. What customs does the village have that are reminiscent of the past? How does Baldwin feel among these villagers and their customs? Baldwin discusses Americans as “discontented Europeans, facing a great unconquered continent” (168). How does this relate to the American Negro slave experience? Baldwin finds the American Negro history unique in comparison to European Negro history because Europeans kept slaves in colonies. What advantages and disadvantages does Baldwin consider this has? What ideas do you have about this argument? Does Baldwin seem to sympathizes with the American Negro by giving him a greater role in American history? Does this change anything for you? Lastly, Baldwin writes, “the white man’s motive [for the battle] was the protection of his identity; the black man was motivated by the need to establish an identity” (173). How do these two “motives” compliment each? What happens to Blacks in Paris who are identified as American if they are still "establish[ing] an identity?" Are Blacks part of the American identity?

A thought about man love

In our last class session we started to discuss man love in Banjo. Unfortunately class ended and we didn't really finish that discussion. I wanted to only mention that in Stephen's article she states "new ways of representing masculine intimacy uncorrupted by male conflicts over women." This is perhaps the reason Latnah's affair with Banjo had to end. It seems that in order for Ray and Banjo to fully develop their relationship there is no room for women, because women are a source of argument and confusion for women and require attention (the kind Banjo is willing to give to Ray). Just a quick thought...

Francophone African Literature

Stephen D. called my attention to this NY Times article that relates to some of our recent discussions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/books/review/12ZANGANE.html?emc=eta1
Thanks Stephen!

1929 Books Reviews of Banjo

In class, someone mentioned that they were curious about the reaction to Banjo at the time it was published. Here are links to two book reviews written in response to the book at the time. I realize that these reviews don't necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the African American community (or any other community, for that matter) as a whole, but they are still interesting to take a look at.

Review of Banjo in the Milwaukee Journal, May 11th, 1929.

Review of Banjo in the Pittsburgh Press, May 18th, 1929.

Tam

Hey Guys,

Been thinking a lot about Latnah and the position of women in general in Banjo. Anyway, Latnah seemed to really demand discussion as she is the subject of the book's terminal conversation. Or she is the entrance to a conversation about women in general, maybe. I started looking over this final paragraph of speech (by Banjo) and noted a few remarkable abnormalities. First: Banjo replies to Ray's question about including Latnah in their journey, "Don't get soft ovah any one wimmens, pardner." (The italics are mine). What are we to make of this incongruous pluralization? Banjo has intimated in previous chapters that all women are the same to him, is this simply an instance of that misogyny made grammatically manifest? Is it possible that Latnah means nothing more to Banjo than any other woman might? Skipping ahead to the third sentence in what is purported to be Banjo's (!) dialogue we get: "A woman is a conjunction." Lets forget about the semantic weight of that line for a second and just focus on the dialect McKay uses: that's not how Banjo talks. Ever. And McKay makes obvious this discrepancy by juxtaposing wimmens and woman in the same paragraph. That word alone is enough to signal that something has gone seriously awry in Banjo's speech patterning, but then that word is metaphorized as a conjunction. As a piece of grammar! Banjo doesn't say shit like that. Ray might, though I can't recall an instance in which he has. The narrator (whatever polyglot of voices and characters that actually is) might as well, since grammar and words are presumably the narrator's business, but this feels almost like a new voice, one that is suddenly as concerned with the physical stuff of making novels as the characters that stuff is used to portray. One, in fact, that equates the two: "A woman is a conjunction." Or maybe it's the same voice that wrote "A story without a plot". Ultimately it's probably futile to attempt assigning this voice to anyone; the significant thing is that I don't see how it could possibly be the voice of Banjo we've become accustomed to. So what's going on? What is happening to speech and to agency as the book ends? What is invading Banjo's voice? And we've got to remember that it still is Banjo's voice. I don't mean to take this statement away from him, just to note that something has changed very quickly and strangely.

Also, what is being said in that line "A woman is a conjunction."? Moments after Banjo has grammatically stripped Latnah of any individuality is this new voice restoring some of it? Is Latnah, being mixed race, being as James called her (I think) "the book's phantom architecture", the conjunction actually being discussed in this sentence? Is Banjo unconsciously thinking about Latnah since she is, after all, the catalyst of this discourse on women and male partnership? Is this the voice of Banjo's unconscious that talks about women as conjunctions? What the fuck?


Also just noticed that the copy of the book that like everyone except Erica has is red, white and blue (as are the flags of the U.S., England and France) and that the title Banjo is filled with red and white horizontal stripes (like the U.S. flag, but not like Britain and France). Significant? Obviously not a choice made by McKay, but perhaps by a publisher and authorized by him. Regardless, it can be interesting to think about the information we (unwittingly?) receive from a book's packaging.

Ok. Sorry. I'm done.

Jess

Yayy!! I Finally Got It!! Banjo And A Long Way From Home

This Is Not A Test: Andrew-Luke Here

Having read Banjo and A Long Way From Home, the questions that I am about to raise have to deal with identity. The identity of McKay as he saw himself in relation to the world, the identity as to how others viewed McKay, and thirdly how McKay's characters would view McKay.

1. In his autobiography, McKay on page 67 of the second course packet describes that he "won over most of the Negro intelligentsia in Paris, excepting the leading journalist..." From what I gather I believe that he is talking about Dr. Alain Locke and if it is Dr. Locke, why does McKay clearly not like him and respect him as a writer, and as a man?


2. McKay on page 66 in the same course packet is speaking with one of the Harlem Negroid Elite when she states: " The people in Home to Harlem are our low-down Negroes and we respectable Negroes ought to be proud that we are not like them and be grateful to you for giving us a real picture of Negroes whose lives we know little about on the inside." McKay's response, " I felt completely vindicated." (66).

A:
Why does McKay feel at all "vindicated" as this female elite stated McKay was just doing what Whites did all the time when writing about Negroes. Do you feel McKay truly believed that he actually felt vindicated.

B:
How would Banjo react what would he say and what would he do to McKay for making this statement if he had the opportunity to?

3. On pages 60-61 in the course packet, Le Corse and McKay's interactions come across as downright troubling. The issue of commidification once again manifests itself, and also the interaction between the Occidental (Le Corse) vs. the Oriental.

A.
Where does McKay fit into the aforementioned category his struggle indicates that of the Orient, but his social circle would indicate the former.

B.
Le Corse states: "I don't like degenerates. Of course, if rich people want to indulge a fantasy, I arrange privately for them, for rich people can afford to be fantastic. But I have no use for plain poor people being fantastic unless they are making money by it."

What then is Le Corse's interest in McKay other than on the strength of his friend vouching for McKay? Why is McKay different from a Senegalese because he is American, why does Le Corse refer to Senegalese as "savages and stupid" (60).

C.
Is Le Corse trying to convince McKay that he is nothing like the Senegalese and that he himself is not like the Spaniards and Portuguese? Or is it because like McKay discovered when seeing Ivan Opfer's accurate non-romantic-non-sycophantic artistic depiction of reality as he saw it and what Le Corse new himself to be?

Does Le Corse realize that he can protect his Wife and Children from the family business in running Mancebias (brothels, bawdy houses) but ultimately he cannot protect himself from who he truly is and his fear of himself?

My Thoughts

Banjo

1. Banjo is as much a commentary on capitalism, colonialism and class as it is about race.  Do you find the discussions Ray, Banjo and the other characters in the novel have about these issues to be a natural part of the narrative?  Or are there times when the intense conversations feel more like the author forcing his views on the reader than they are a part of an organic outgrowth of the narrative?

2. There are moments when Banjo freely floats from one place to the next without concerning himself with the greater affairs of the world around him and then there are times when he seems profound in his understanding of the world around him.  How do you see him?  Is he the lucky fool or is there a complexity to his ways?  Is there a wisdom in him that allows him to be free of the world in a way some of the other characters seem incapable of being?  Perhaps, there is a bit of the Dual-Consciousness DuBois spoke of in Banjo that allows him to smile and party and live to the fullest, while at the same time fully understanding the nature of the hostile world around him.  What do you think?

3.  In many ways, this story has a Socialist leaning.  There seems to be no love for Capitalism.  Time and time again the author's voice declares that it's not the voices of the higher classes that should be listened to, but rather it is the voices of the masses that matter.  When the ship with the dollar sign comes into port, the author lets us know that it is not welcome.  The reader does not seem to be given a chance to make up his or her mind regarding the world Banjo lives in.  How do you feel about this?  Would you like more room to maneuver as a reader?  Perhaps, if the author's voice wasn't so strong and or so intertwined with Ray's, the reader could be allowed more space to interpret the world of Marseilles and the world outside of Marseilles.  Or are you fine with the spaces you have been given as a reader along with the commentaries being offered up to you by the author?  If you loved capitalism and the free market, would it be possible to enjoy this book?

4. McKay touches on almost every aspect of what it meant to be a black man in the world Banjo exists in.  And not just an African-American black man, but a black man from all the parts of the world that interacted with the White world.  He goes into great detail about the relationships people of color have with the whites as well as the relationships they have with one another.   Did his rendering of this Black diaspora deepen your understanding of the characters and of their world?  Or did you find it to be information that, though interesting, did not seem to be necessary for the progression (if you found progression) of the narrative.  If you could cut away parts of the narrative, would these renderings be cut away or would you choose other parts of the story?  If so, what parts and why?

5.  Why do you think McKay wrote this book?  What do you think he was trying to do with this narrative?  I agree with what many said during the last class.  That this book is a work of love.  Many of the conversations in this book are conversations I have heard in my own life (as a person of color) among friends and family members.  It seems that over the years so much has not changed.  People of Color still speak about the use of the word "nigger".  They still discuss the differences between Africans and West-Indians and African-Americans.  They still speak of the need to BE BLACK AND PROUD in our artistic endeavors instead of "simply" being ARTISTIC.  They still argue over the questions of race relations.  So for me, McKay wrote this book to make the conversations Black people have amongst ourselves into something larger.  Perhaps, he wanted to open up these communal talks we have amongst ourselves. He wanted to allow us to see the connections our lives have with the lives of others around us, others of different colors, who in many ways do differ from us, but also, who in many ways share the same stories as us.  These are stories having to do with being men and women lost and mixed-up into the milieu of a world of commerce and industry.  That is just my take.  What is yours?

Sean

Banjo - Claude McKay

1- One of the things that stood out to me while reading this text was seemingly the absence of a high concern or a high level of consciousness for race relations, at least, in comparison to a lot of the other material we’ve read so far. McKay presents his characters as simply living in Marseilles but not necessarily facing the issues of race. Aside from the minor altercations with police officers there does not seem to be any major issues with race. The first relevant race issue (racism) that present itself in the text occurs in Ch 6 (Meeting-Up) when the Blacks and Italians get into a brawl. As the chapter progresses we learn of the bar keepers struggle with his beliefs in Marcus Garvey’s Back to Africa movement and the grandeur of American Progress. Why is there little focus on race? Why does McKay not place great emphasis on the struggle that is definitely recurrent during the 20’s into his book? Is this book even about race?


2- While all of the characters are very similar to each other, some of them differ greatly. When introduced to Ray, the reader gets the idea of a man who is perhaps formally educated and shares a different view about the world and has a higher level of consciousness when it comes to race relations. Taloufa, a Nigerian, holds a strong belief in Marcus Garvey and the “Back to Africa” movement. Banjo is seemingly less concerned with politics and moreso with music and forming an orchestra. McKay uses all of the men in the “group” to "contribute" something different to their overall outlook on life. What is the importance of this? Why bring in all of these different factors (characters)? What is McKay saying about the society we live in, if anything at all? How do the characters each contribute in one way or another?

3- Music and wine (alcohol) seem to be the only driving factors for many of the characters in Banjo. It presumably brings out the height of their contentment. Aside from Banjo, aspiring to put together a black orchestra, have these other men lost touch with reality and simply live day-to-day content in dreaming and getting “sweetly soft?” Are they settling for what Marseilles has to offer because they believe there is nothing more for them?

Alcohol seems to be the central factor that always ties and brings these men together in gathering. Do they simply enjoy the alcohol because it is an escape from what their life really is or does it truly bring about satisfaction for them?

4- There seems to be a great play of and around the word “primitivism.” Many connotations surrounding it are found in the text. The music that is played by the men brings about this earthy, deeply rooted feeling from those listening to it. We read that, “…no matter what the name may be, Negroes are never so beautiful and magical as when they do that gorgeous sublimation of the primitive African sex feeling. In its thousand varied patterns, depending so much on individual rhythm, so little on formal movement, this dance is the key to the African rhythm of life… (105).” What is the importance of this? The references that continually give into the idea of “primitiveness” is continually found throughout the book. Is McKay feeding into the idea of it or does he have another reason for presenting the text the way he does? Are the stereotypes damaging or do they serve another purpose?

Banjo

A) What are the implications of McKay's use of dialect? How does it influence the plot? How does it affect the reader?

B) How do the detailed descriptions of music and dance found repeatedly throughout the novel shed light on the characters therein?

C) How are women depicted in Banjo? What do the characters of Banjo and Latnah suggest about women?

McKay's Banjo

Hey all so here are some questions to think about for Class tomorrow.

A. What do you think of the statement of "BANJO A Story Without a Plot?" Does McKays statement relate at all to the situation of Ex patriots? I found it a parallel to what was happening in Europe, where we have all these men and women living their lives and they all form one story but their is no plot.

B. What do you think of Banjo's presentation? In the beginning of the story we have him traversing the landscape as out of luck man, but we are told that at a point he had money and would give to those who asked it of him (hence the return by the train hoppers of buying him a meal.). Is their a significance of showing a character who is not living the high life in France?

C. I found myself thinking of Banjo as a metaphor for the Ex Patriots themselves. His life style was not the best having to live off panhandling and such but he enjoyed the freedom to play and live life care free. Similarly some Ex Patriots came to Europe to learn a new life style usually leaving comfort or some form of indenture to either society or others. Now in Europe they are able to explore a freer life, without the full pressure of constant racism and difficulty of living in the states. Is Banjo's situation an example of this, where he lived with wealth and one time he now simply lives?

Eddie.

Walrond writing Cause of America

We discussed if Warlond was really an ex-patriot, as he was not from America truly but wrote about experiences. I had a thought that he did not so much write about America but wrote because of America, his motivation and direction flowing from the states.

Though he did not always paint a flattering picture of it he did seem to turn to it for direction and comparison.

This is my thought and was wondering what others think.

Eric Walrond

In "Harlem," Walrond compares Harlem, "the black capital of the universe", to the "primitive rhythms of the African jungle" (36). How do you think the culture, the styles, the business of "hot stuff", the "Houses of tolerance", and the cabarets of "Rawlins' Paradise" compare, or don't compare, to the African jungle? Is this actually representative of the "primitive" culture that made black culture popular in the 1920's?

The idea of nationality vs. nationlessness is a recurrent theme we will encounter throughout the course. But, as Walrond depicts, the idea of "home" is quite elusive: in "White Man, What Now?" he catalogs the various kinds of prejudices he encounters on his travels within the Caribbean, and in "The Negro in London" he compares the prejudices the black man may encounter abroad; How do the prejudices vary within the West Indies to England (to America, even). How are they similar? And as a follow-up, why is the "Negro artist" viewed differently than the seamen and other black immigrants that settle in England?

This idea of nationlessness can either create a divide or be a unifying force amongst black immigrants (whether in the Caribbean, America, or in Europe), and as exemplified in "Harlem," black culture is culled from a variety of influences, so how do the immigrants from varying backgrounds establish a divided or a unified culture?

And, for good measure (and for the postcolonial lovers), in both "The Negro in London" and "On England",  Walrond mentions how the British power seems to elicit a sense of pride in the mother country and bring about a sense of nationhood in its colonial rule over Barbadoes (amongst other islands), why do the British instill ideas of national pride in the West Indies, yet look upon a black immigrant with "cold indifference" (49). What might be the reason for the Brits to create a national identity in colonizing the West Indies, to declare a loud proclamation of national existence which does not actually exist (52)? Is it simply to make the inhabitants more "English" than "African" as Walrond exclaims in "White Man, What Now?" (47). What risks does it pose for the West Indians to blindly follow the culture of the English as opposed to creating their own sense of culture or connect back to African culture?  

Responding to Eric Walrond

“Harlem”

If Harlem is considered to be the “black capital of the universe” (36) by writers such as Langston Hughes and Eric Walrond, are they making such assessment at the expense of other people outside of Harlem?

How is Walrond's view of Harlem different from Montmartre?

Do you think Jim Rawlins is a sell-out for preferring to cater only to “white patrons” (38)?

On “White Man, What Now?,” “The Negro in London” and “On England.”

My problem with Waldron is that I do not know how to categorize him. In his short essays, he deals with fragmented identity, cultural displacement, otherness and hybridity, which are tenets of the postcolonial field. Is there a difference between African-American and Third World writers who write abroad? Should Waldron be cast as a “Harlemite,” even if he is dealing with the Empire?

Walrond writes: “It is indeed a paradox that London, the capital of the largest Negro Empire in the world—the cradle of English liberty, Justice and fair-play—the city to which Fredrick Douglass fled as a fugitive from slavery—should be so extremely inexpert in the matter of interracial relations. But in this respect London may be easily compared with New York twenty years before the big migration which resulted in the establishment of Harlem” (50). I do not agree with this statement because, historically, one cannot compare London with New York. Africans and Caribbean natives go to London for educational, economic and social opportunities to better their lives and to escape from political prosecution. African-Americans went to London during Walrond’s time because they want a place where they could feel or be seen as equals to the white man. But according to the quote, Africans and Caribbean were never seen as their equals in the eye of Englishmen. Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Discuss?

Walrond describes “A gentleman [as] [a]nybody who is well-dressed. . . . [o]ne who is not intentionally rude” (52). Does that apply to blacks?

Follow up on my Survey.

Hey everyone, just wanted to say thanks for participating in my discussion of Hughes last week. After looking at the surveys, I thought it was interesting how many of you find happiness through: 1.sleep

2.family/friends

3.music.

Similar to Hughes, you guys aren't too materialistic which is good to know, so don't expect any birthday presents from me. Thanks again :)

"Harlem, USA" Exhibit at the Studio Museum

One more event!

The Studio Museum in Harlem has a pretty interesting exhibit going on right now. It is titled "Harlem, USA" and it will go on through March 13th, 2011. I realize that it's not focused on Europe (and therefore doesn't relate to class material entirely) but I still thought some of you might find it interesting since we often find ourselves supplementing the material we do have with Harlem-related topics during discussion. Here is the link to an article about the exhibit, as well as a link to the museum site, for those of you who might be interested.

Admission is free on Sundays (*hint*hint* it's the weekend!) and the suggested donation price for students with ID is $3 the rest of the week.

Best,

Tami

"To You, Mr Hughes," Saturday, February 26th, 2011

Hi guys!

This Saturday, February 26th, the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture is having an event called "To You, Mr. Hughes." Here is the description from the NYPL site:

"Don’t miss a dramatic musical tribute to Langston Hughes, poet laureate of Harlem, written and directed by Hazel Rosetta Smith, Help Somebody Theatrical Ministries. Tickets: Members, $16; Non-members, $20."

Since we discussed Hughes in class just this week, I thought some of you might be interested in attending (that is, if you don't already have something super duper planned for Saturday).

It will be on at 3 p.m.:

http://www.nypl.org/locations/tid/64/node/103121?lref=64%2Fcalendar

...as well as at 7 p.m.:

http://www.nypl.org/locations/tid/64/node/103122?lref=64%2Fcalendar

I know it's not free but check it out, if you're up for it.

Best,

Tami

Shirley Graham (Du Bois) & Eric Walrond at Versailles

Just peeking ahead to the material for March 3... This is a photo from 1930 of Eric Walrond and Shirley Graham, who would later marry W.E.B. Du Bois.  When I came across it in the Schlesinger Women's History Library at Harvard last year in Shirley Graham's manuscript files, neither the man nor the location were identified, only Shirley.  But because I had been researching Walrond, knew what he looked like, and knew he traveled with Ms. Graham in Paris that year, I alerted the archivist of her companion's name.  The location proved more difficult, but after consulting a couple of French historians it seemed clear that the Palace of Versailles is almost certainly it.  Although she's best known for having been Du Bois' wife, Shirley Graham was a really interesting person in her own right.  Walrond corresponded with her for a while after she returned to the U.S., where she taught music at Morgan State College in B'more.

Langston Hughes

"One of the most promising of the young Negro poets said to me once, "I want to be a poet--not a Negro poet," meaning, I believe, "I want to write like a white poet"; meaning subconsciously, "I would like to be a white poet"; meaning behind that, "I would like to be white." And I was sorry the young man said that, for no great poet has ever been afraid of being himself. And I doubted then that, with his desire to run away spiritually from his race, this boy would ever be a great poet. But this is the mountain standing in the way of any true Negro art in America--this urge within the race toward whiteness, the desire to pour racial individuality into the mold of American standardization, and to be as little Negro and as much American as possible." (The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain)

** Langston Hughes wrote this article, "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain", for the June 1926 issue of The Nation.

Langston Hughes argues that in order to be a great poet, one mustn't escape his identity, and that it isn't appropriate to distinguish oneself from one's color. If an artist does not acknowledge himself as being a Negro first and foremost, he denies a part of himself, and therefore denies his identity. This piece was my first introduction to Langston Hughes, and to this day I'm not quite sure I can buy what he says. I want to note, too, that this piece was written as a direct answer to George Schuyler, who wrote that an African American artist should compose work as an American, not an African American.

1. How should the Negro writer present himself to the public? Should he, like Langston Hughes, declare himself as being Negro before being a writer, or should one take Schuyler's route and declare himself a writer before a Negro?

I Thought It Was Tangiers I Wanted

1. What is the difference in tone when Hughes writes "I know now" (in the first 4 stanzas) verses "I thought" (in stanza 5)? There is a differentiation here between the act of thinking and the act of knowing, yes? While he travels and experiences, he notes that what he once thought he wanted is not quite true anymore.

2. As Michael Fabre discusses in his article (Langston Hughes and Alain Locke: Jazz in Montemarte and African Art), Hughes' first connection to France was being able to understand Guy de Maupassant & Alexandre Dumas, and first discovering his love for writing. How can this help us take on a different reading of the poem other than being happy with oneself? Is it fair to say that Hughes becomes disillusioned by the reality of this new environment?

Jazz Band in a Parisian Cabaret

1. In this poem, jazz becomes something which has the power to link. Jazz is not meant for one group to enjoy, but instead, it has this almost powerful force of creating unity. But is this unifier only able to work in France? Could Jazz in America have the same effect?