Responding to Tuesday's Quotations

What I find interesting about these excerpts is how different the responses to France’s and London’s way of life are from the prospective of the black writers mentioned here. On one side, Langston Hughes, Jessie Fausset, Richard Wright, and Paul Robeson glorify England and France. They paint a picture perfect of London and France that is the opposite of America. To them, England and France are countries that are colorblind and offer opportunities for all “Negroes” alike. In London or France, “Negroes” do not have to sit at the back of the bus, worry about segregation, as Paul Robeson asserts and African-American can be themselves, as Hughes points out. On the other side, Claude McKay and J. A. Rogers who are Afro-Caribbean writers writing in America draw a picture that is contradictory to that of Hughes, Fausset, Wright and Robeson. For Mckay, “London [is] like a heavy suffocating shroud. It not only wrapped you around but entered your throat like a strangling nightmare.” As for J. A. Rogers, France is a cutthroat place, unless one has money to survive. Negroes from the States or South Africa are better off “Stay[ing] at home” because they are “lucky and don’t know it.” Are McKay’s and Rogers’ responses to France and London different from Hughes’ or Robeson’s because of their origins (Birthplace)? Does it even matter? Even though this class is not about colonialism, should McKay’s and Rogers’ colonial past play a role in their different responses form the African American? Should these queries be completely taken out? Are they fair questions? I am posing these questions because of these writers historical background.