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?
While admittedly I don't know anything about Notting Hill, I do feel that it is important to point out that it is factually inaccurate to state that "a mosque is being built in the place of the twin towers". I would personally also say that rather than being an ill-remembered place, which seems to me to ascribe some sort of negativity to the site, the area known as Ground Zero is more accurately described as a tenderly-remembered place. I do hope that it is within the heart of the American character to eventually reach a place where there can be a sense of forgiveness and understanding.
ReplyDeleteTo comment briefly on your second question, I would say that I don't feel that making Muslims into undesirables was justified ten years ago and that it is not justifiable now.
Eric
You're right Eric, there's only speculation. The only recent news about it, is that there is a lawsuit ruling that should have happened or hasn't yet.
ReplyDeleteI should have been clearer in my response, apologies. What I meant by factually inaccurate applies to two aspects of your statement. First, the supposed mosque is defined by its intended builders to be actually a community center. Second, the location is not at Ground Zero, but rather a few blocks away from Ground Zero. The definition of the project as a mosque being built at Ground Zero is the product by exactly those who regard Muslims as undesirables. The shrine that will be built at Ground Zero will be one dedicated to the all-American religion: capitalism. The proposed community center is not on the site.
ReplyDeleteEric