The Nephew's reaction

In the four horsemen chapter in Beloved, Morrison writes the scene from the point of view of each of the horsemen. Although all of the points of view are interesting, especially the slave catcher who views the whole capture as a job and only that, and Schoolteacher who just sees the lost goods and is think of how to punish his nephew, I think the nephew's take on what is happening is also really interesting.

The first line we get was, "he didn't know he was shaking." This is immediately followed by what can be seen as something like denial. Although Schoolteacher warned him that something like this could happen, he didn't expect it and he seems to start feeling regret at his actions. The nephew thinking things like "Hell he'd been beat a million times" and then later, "I mean no way he could have..." give us the sense that he really didn't think that this could happen. The second quote gives us the sense that the nephew feels responsible for this to some extent. The fact that he is shaking also supports this assertion. Although when he does what he does he thinks nothing of it, as soon as he sees the consequences of his actions, children being killed, he regrets what he has done.

I think this is a really interesting perspective to look at. In the case of the others who are trying to take Sethe and the kids back to Sweet Home, they view none of her actions as their own fault, but the nephew does see what happens as at least partly his fault. This gives us a more nuanced picture of how slavery affected people. In addition to harming the slaves physically and mentally, it harms the masters too in the sense that they have to lose enough regard for fellow humans that they can cause so much harm and not feel bad about it. Basically the nephew in this story shows us the sheer amount of conditioning that the southerners went through to be able to do what they did and not regret any of it.

Overall, these four different perspectives on what is happening in the shed give a nuanced view of the relationship between the slaves and the masters. What do you guys think about these perspectives? 

Style Wars and biting

While watching Style Wars and in the discussion we had afterwords, biting was one of the main issues that each artist or group had with other artists and groups. This idea of a personal style that only you have the right to use is something that is very interesting and can even be seen in modern derivations of this style of art and in the hip-hop culture.

Biting is when another person takes something that you created and copies it blatantly, but this can make some interesting cases. This can apply not only to things like tags and such, but also to color schemes, lettering and the ideas that you throw out. As always there is a very fine line with drawing inspiration from another work and just copying it, but the fact that biting is so frowned upon means that you have to be especially creative in how you portray what you want to portray. You need to make sure that no one else can take offense to what you are putting out. This also applies to break dancing in the form of copying peoples moves or sets of moves. All of this just further increases the amount of creativity that these people have as there are so many way in which they express themselves without copying other people's styles.

Another way to look at the impressiveness of these people is in how rap artist deal with biting. The complexity of the rhymes and references they use is impressive already, and if you add in the fact that they have to make sure to not copy anyone else's rhymes it makes it even more impressive.

One example of this distinctiveness of style can be seen in the songs "Around my way (freedom ain't free) by Lupe Fiasco and "They Reminisce Over You" (T.R.O.Y) by Pete Rock and CL Smooth. "Around My Way" samples the saxophone beat from T.R.O.Y, and when you listen to them they sound very similar, but if you listen closely you can tell that the way the rappers rhyme over the same beat is quite different. Both rappers pause in different places and manipulate the beat to how they want to use it.

Overall, basically the importance of not biting other artists' styles makes pretty much everything done by each of the individual artists more impressive.

Duality in "Afro-American"

Afro-American by Henry Dumas has many contradictions that shed light on to the situations of slavery in America, America itself and Christianity. At the basic level in the poem we get the distinct difference in how his "black mother" and "white mother" are described. He describes the white mother using terms like whore and overall just using language with negative connotations and negative wording. In contrast to this he describes his black mother as "a fine beautiful thang" and uses other language that describes his black mother in a positive light.

The other major contradiction is in how religion is described. The first instance we get of this is in the first stanza when the narrator says said that the white mother sanctified and crucified me. Although both are religious, sanctification is a very positive, giving holiness to somebody, and crucifixion is a very bad side of the religion, being a cause of death. Another duality happens when the narrator says "the holy white plague." White plague is already a contradiction as white usually implies pure or undisturbed while a plague only happens when something is tainted. In addition, there is a distinct contradiction between holy and plague as usually something that brings death isn't holy.

This paradoxical religiously slanted wording provides a very nuanced view of America and Christianity. Although there are good aspects of both, looking at them from another view point can make them look really terrible. In addition to this paradoxical nature, we also get a fairly bad view of Christianity, which seems a little weird as the slave population used Christianity often to reverse the power dynamic and give themselves hope for the future. Overall, the poem gives us a different view of Christianity than we might expect, but the bashing of the whites in charge of slavery/the state of America during the slavery era is portrayed badly as it often is. 

"Niggerish ways"

When the gang is trying to steal the safe from the store during the riots, Gunnar encounters his father who is pulling up with he other policemen, and tries to distract him to let the others get away. When he tries to talk to his father, his father says, "You are not a Kaufman. I refuse to let you embarrass me. You can't embarrass me with poetry and your niggerish ways" (137). 

This scene way very striking to me in a couple of ways. Just looking at what his father says first, "You are not a Kaufman" gives off this very hostile vibe that you would not expect from a father to a son. The fact that he is willing to completely separate himself from his son without even knowing the situations he is in seems like their relationship was already messed up. In addition, Gunnar's father see him as only a source of embarrassment. This seems weird especially when he mentions poetry because the gang he runs with and all the other gangs have resident poets, and it seems to be fairly accepted in the society, but Gunnar's father sees it as a source of embarrassment. This puts a twist on the situation where your parents are supposed to be accepting of what you want to do with your life, and his mother is fairly accepting of everything he does, but his father is angry with him for it. 

The other striking phrase is when he says that Gunnar's "niggerish ways" are an embarrassment. Previously Gunnar was ecstatic when he was called the n-word, but in this context it is very insulting. The way he acts is seen as bad and unseemly, playing into the stereotype of the aggressive. uncultured black man. Gunnar's father dislikes how Gunnar acts so much that that he is willing to hurl what could be considered one of the worst insults at Gunnar. I think this insult is so bad because it is basically telling Gunnar that his identity is wrong and wont be respected by people outside of the community.

Overall, Gunnar's father dislikes Gunnar very much, enough to basically call him out as a completely different person, completely unrelated to himself. He also harbors enough animosity towards him that he is willing to call him an embarrassment, and even call his character bad.

How to get out

Gunnar has a unique life where he exceeds at multiple things and can choose between them to figure out what he really wants to do. He has amazing basketball skills and is a famous poet by the time he is in college. This situation is very peculiar as it gives Gunnar the ability to abandon either of these when he wants to or is not enjoying it, and pursue the other. This is not the case for most people with some talent. Usually people are only really good at one thing, and especially if they are poor they have to pursue that to have a chance to get out of the cycle of poverty. Its Gunnar's talent at both that allows him to not really care much about basketball and allows him to pursue poetry as well.

This situation gives us an interesting dynamic where Gunnar doesn't need to focus solely basketball, and where he doesn't really enjoy it even though he is good because he doesn't need to force himself into liking basketball. Although Gunnar's character is defined by his basketball talent, he doesn't actually buy into the sport that much. The fact that he feels like he is performing shows this to a great extent. Gunnar knows he is just being used for entertainment, and so he plays along with that aspect, but Gunnar never really wants to play basketball for others.

This is opposed in his poetry as he write only for himself for the most part. Gunnar is able to express his true thoughts about issues that he thinks are relevant and he doesn't really need to worry about a public image or audience.

Overall, if Gunnar only had talent for basketball, he probably would have needed to care more about his public appearance as basketball would have been able to give him a good life. If Gunnar was only good at poetry a similar dynamic may have existed, but the fact that he is good at both allows him to express his true self.

Reflections on Ethnic Notions

Ethnic Notions had a large discussion about how the stereotypes of blacks created in the slavery and post-slavery eras continue and are reinforced today. Particularly, the stereotype of the aggressive, uncultured black man that is not respectable and can't do much with his life is and was present and depicted very often. Although this stems from the thought that African Americans were dependent on white population, the stereotype still somewhat exists today.

One major form of this today is in music, specifically the G-rap, or gangsta rap genre. Iconic rappers such as Dr. Dre have many songs that exemplify this stereotype. Songs like "Forgot About Dre" on The Chronic 2001 where Dre asserts himself in an aggressive way as one of the most important people in the era. Other songs like "Bring Da Ruckus" by Wu-Tang Clan on Enter the Wu-Tang Clan- 36 Chambers also show this fairly well.

Many rappers tap into this stereotype, making song about drugs, sex, or killing people and all of these songs seem to be a descendant of this stereotype of the aggressive black man that was created so that people would regret stopping slavery. In addition, many rappers are only characterized by this style of song when in many songs there are deeper messages.

The main rebuttal those making the songs have to say about this is that what they are representing is generally just a depiction of life in the ghetto. Instead of being aggressive because they can't not be aggressive, its is because these people had to survive through rough times and they want to represent their hardship through music. Although this may be true, many also do not like this representation because people tend to generalize more than is needed and this seems to reflect badly on the others of the population.

Overall, this stereotype is still very present today, and I believe it will continue to be as long as it is being used in situations like these. 

Janie and the narrator from Invisible Man

In both Their Eyes Were Watching God  and Invisible Man, we have narrators that are looking for something. Janie is looking for love, or more specifically her ideal setting of love, which she procured through an epiphany under a pear tree, and for the narrator in Invisible Man although his goal changes, by the end of the book he wants to answer the question of his identity, and who he really is.

Both these characters are similar in many ways, but they also have some stark differences. For one, Janie seems to have much more control over her life and decisions than does the narrator. The narrator gets pushed around being forced into roles which he doesn't really want to be in, such as having to find a job after he is kicked out of college, while Janie has enough free will to be able to leave her marriage with the notion that maybe doing this could further her mission of achieving her ideals.

One similarity between the two characters is that they both feel compelled to do something with their lives. For Janie it is only realizing her ideals, but the narrator wants to achieve a position of respect in society and much of his life is lived with that goal in mind. Going to college and experiencing the humiliation of being in a boxing ring before giving a speech to a crowd that doesn't want to listen at all, shows that the narrator has determinations to make his dreams successful. Both of the characters have these ideals in the beginning, but for the narrator, his ideal are shattered and his first impressions of almost everything seem to be wrong. He thinks that the Brotherhood will be good for him, but it only causes him to see more separation in what he thinks versus the ideology of others. He wants to become successful in a way similar to Bledsoe, but then Bledsoe is revealed to not be such a great guy.

The determination of these two characters to reach a goal is similar, with both taking risks at some point in their lives to advance themselves towards what they want to achieve, yet their situations are so different that it is hard to compare them in many aspects. How do you think these characters are related?

Janie's hunt for love

Much discussion has been had around the question of Janie's ideals of love in a relationship. The scene with the pear tree where she has an "epiphany" about how life is supposed to work and the point where she enters into full consciousness, gives her the ideal of love being a state that should be attainable, most likely through marriage, and affects her decisions in the future heavily.

Are Janie's ideals bad? I don't think so, and I don't think this is a point that the book is trying to make. Janie seems to care a lot about her ideals, and is willing to go fairly far away from where she is comfortable, as she leaves home for a guy that she had only know for a week. She is willing to go through any experience just to achieve this ideal. At first the experience is marriage, where she think that since all the adult say that marriage leads to love, it will happen to her too. When it doesn't really live up to her expectations, disappointing her in many aspects, she decides to have more experiences, leaving her old marriage behind completely. She leaves with Jody, not really knowing what she is getting into, but because there is a chance for her ideals to be recognized she takes the chance and goes with it.

I think Janie's ideals lead to a determination that isn't present in many people other than for survival. After leaving her first marriage, she can't go back, so she has to make her situation with Jody work, and because of this she endures all of his antics for 20 years, trying to find what she is looking for and surviving until she can, trying all the time to get closer to her ideals. For Janie it seems that surviving is just part of trying to reach her ideals.

This is a determination that we don't really find present in many other characters. I'm sure her attachment to her ideals will be tested much more, as it already has, and this will lead to more developments in the book. It will be interesting to find out how these ideals change, or don't change, and what happens with her in the future. 

Dialogue in Their Eyes Were Watching God

The phonetic dialogue in Their Eyes Were Watching God stands out as different from he other books we have read in this course so far. Although this dialogue is similar to that of characters like Trueblood in Invisible Man and some of the speech in Native Son, we have never seen its use so widespread throughout all the characters' speech.

The dialogue is interesting because it forces you to pay attention to the text and try to hear what they are say; you can't really just scan this and hope to really understand what is going on. In addition to this, I think that the phonetic dialogue also serves to give us more understanding into who the characters are and what their background is. Comparing this type of speech to the narrator from Invisible Man there is a stark difference between just how they pronounce words, and this allows us to evaluate the characters in Their Eyes Were Watching God as more genuine.

At some points this dialogue does feel somewhat forced though. Instead of just providing context for the characters, this dialogue just seems to make reading the book more difficult. Some words are hard to discern and some may just not mean anything, and this complicates understanding the book to an extent. Because this book is so dialogue heavy, understanding it is key, but when it takes some time to understand what one word means it can be detrimental to the whole book.

The dialogue also is interesting because of the stark contrast it has with the narration of the book. Because the dialogue is written phonetically and the narration is in "proper" English we get a dynamic where there are clear breaks between the two, but they still flow well together, adding another layer to this dialogue.

Overall, I think that the dialogue presented in this way can both be good and bad. Often it leads to feel that the characters are more real, as they speak in colloquialisms, which is just like everyday speech, but this dialogue can also be bad. It sometimes complicates comprehending the book to an unwanted extent. 

The Brotherhood and the narrator

The simple question of the effect that the Brotherhood has on the narrator's life is seemingly easy to answer. The Brotherhood gives him a job, allows him to speak and be a leader in a social movement, and propels him in a direction that the narrator believe will allow him to get in a good position in the future. But, is the Brotherhood really all that good for the Narrator?

The Brotherhood seems to put us in a familiar place. The narrator may simply be being used. As in the battle royal scene at the beginning of the book, where the narrator is simply being used for the entertainment of the rich white patrons of the town, in this case he again may just be a tool for the Brotherhood to advance their cause. In both cases the narrator is working towards giving speeches, never really doubting the direction he is being pointed in or the situations he is put in. As how the narrator never questions the people pushing him around in the beginning of the book, he also never doubts the Brotherhood, even if he does not completely agree with all of their ideologies and methods.

The initial drive for the narrator to accept the job is money. The narrator wants to pay back Mary and he accepts the job, but as soon as he does, he complete forgets this reason. This can be seen in how when Ras the exhorter mentions women and money as the reasons why he thinks the narrator and the others join the Brotherhood it does not resonate with him at all. Money is important to everyone, but as soon as they have enough they take it for granted, never looking back to the real reasons that they did the things that they did.

The narrator also believes that he can achieve a high socially respectable position by working with the Brotherhood and working his way up. This very much points to the narrator still clinging to the image of Bledsoe being in a very socially respectable position. The narrator cannot get rid of the idea that a position like that is the final goal as he had been leading his whole life, up until he was expelled, to attain that.

With the narrator just wanting to give speeches and achieve a good social position the Brotherhood could very easily just be exploiting the narrator for their own advancement with the narrator not realizing it at all, similar to how he was used previously for entertainment.

The "old story" in "The Wrong Street"

In "The Wrong Street" by Cornelius Eady, one of the last lines says, "but now you run in an Old story." The poem is about a man who is basically in the wrong place at the wrong time, being accused of a crime that he did not commit and trying to run away, but realizing that he can't. The question is what is the "old story" that the narrator is talking about.

My interpretation of this line was that the "old story" contained the basic elements of a person who was falsely accused of a crime because of his skin color and being in the wrong place after the person who had actually committed that crime had run away. The old story is the familiar one of a person caught in circumstances that they have no control over, and because of something they cannot get out of the situation. Usually in these situations, the person caught in the situation finds a way out, either by someone else noticing who they were or by the person caught noticing some facts that don't match up. These outs don't exist in the situation at hand. The figures of authority don't seem to differentiate at all between the people of the same skin color. This means that any other person of the same skin color (presumably black) who was caught in this place at this time also could have just as easily been accused of the crime.

I think that the "old story" represents what I said earlier, someone being accused of a crime that they didn't commit because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but this specific case is different because there is no way out for those falsely accused. The other reason that this is different is because of how the accused were accused. You can assume it was mostly because of their skin color and gender, and this promotes the question of how much people should be judged by how they look and their defining characteristics. How well can you really know a person if you only know what they look like?

Although the answer to this is probably very complicated, I think the fact that this situation is called an "old story" points to an answer that would say that at this time the figures of authority thought you could tell almost anything about some people by just how they look. The "old story" could also refer to the familiar stereotyping of these people as dangerous.

What is your interpretation?

Jim Trueblood's story as a rationale for invisibility

Jim Trueblood's story in Invisible Man can be taken many ways. One of these interpretations made by looking at the reaction of the narrator is how each african-american person seems to represent more than just themselves. They represent the community they live in and the african-american community in general. I also believe that the story provides some sort of rationale for invisibility, especially if you look at it from the present narrator's (the one in the prologue) point of view.

If we take invisibility to mean the narrator's isolation and separation from society, then we can see that his crimes, although somewhat noticed, cannot be traced back to him at all. The narrator steals power from Monopolated Light and Power with the company only knowing the area in which the power is being taken, not knowing anything about the narrator or where he is. The narrator also lives right under white-only housing, but draw no attention to himself because he is invisible. His invisibility give him the freedom to do almost whatever he wants because there is nobody who knows that he did it, and if nobody knows then no person can give him repercussions.

I draw this in contrast to Jim Trueblood as his "act" draw a large amount of attention from both the people directly around him, his community, and even people who don't even know that he existed before they heard about the incident, like Mr. Norton. As Trueblood is very visible to everyone, his actions have direct repercussions, such as his community shunning him.

The problem with nobody noticing your actions is that when you do something positive, or noteworthy, no one is there to give you praise for it. This means that unless you want to live a completely solitary lifestyle being invisible is not a great option even if you don't want repercussions for your bad actions.

Overall, would you want the narrator's invisibility, or do you think it would lead to a lonely and unbearable lifestyle?