“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?
When Harlem is called the "black capital of the universe", I don't believe Hughes or Walrond would intend any deliberation to other blacks living in other places. I think it is just their way of saying that Harlem is where all of the action is. It's kind of how Chicago is known to be the windy city and New Yorkers don't feel offense on our very windy days. :)
ReplyDelete"White Man, What Now?" gave me the impression that Walrond would agree with your observation of Africans and Carribeans not being seen as true equals in the eyes of the English, although many of them migrated to England, often of their own accord, with hopes of arriving at something better in life. Walrond writes, "Our position in the West Indies, in virtue of the ideas instilled into us by our English education, has been one of extreme self-esteem. We were made to believe that in none of the other colonies were the blacks treated as nicely as we were." He goes on to say, "We took on as much of English civilization as lay in our power... Our love for England and our wholehearted acceptance of English life and customs, at the expense of everything African, blinded us to so many things." In other words, Walrond seems to feel that his people were duped into having a fondness for and sense of loyalty to England. In a way, their way of thinking about and seeing all that is English has been programmed into them by way of the English education they receive. Additionally, due to their loyalty to the crown, they go so far as to adopt English ideals while those of their own culture get put on the back-burner or disappear completely. As Walrond points out, in Barbados, for example, English ideals and customs noticeably start to take priority over African ones. So much so that their neighbors begin to view this behavior as ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Negro in London," he admits that upon arriving in the supposed "Mother Country," the "deception" is revealed as "the illusive veil" is finally lifted. "On coming to England the first impression the black man gets is that of utter loneliness," and it becomes clear that the distance has been a major contributing factor to the "enchantment" with England. Upon closer inspection of the country, the reality of the race relations between blacks and the English becomes clear as the existence of the Color Bar is confirmed.
I feel from yesterday's class, that we can see an underlying need or want from the black Diaspora, the need to define and identify what black is. This is why I feel Joan's question transformed, and the tennis match of responses occurred.
ReplyDeleteBy looking at Eric Walrond's "White man, What now?" he identifies himself as a West Caribbean Negro. Our class, and even people in past times interacting with the Pan-African, and Negritude movements have lumped these writers of color together for stability for the movement, and in our case a stable class structure.
But what I am curious in, is the way that we define ourselves. We can look at different countries like America versus England, and see that the color of one's skin may not always be the "marker" of a black person. In today's world, people of mixed races challenge this question, trying to find out who they are. Generally the public and media categorizes them as black because of the non-white half, I can think of Tiger Woods for instance.
What is more important in the question of identity, is how we identify ourselves. When identifying oneself, it is almost impossible not to identify by using opposites: I am black, because I am not white. But how can one identify themselves without looking at the outside world for definition? Or is it simple impossible, because true definition involves more than one opinion? How we supposed to I-dentify ourselves, when the discourse of identity is intertwined with public values, and systems?