12 Years a Slave

“I don’t want to survive. I want to live.”

These are the powerful words of Solomon Northrup, the main character in 12 Years a Slave. Solomon is a free African American man who lives with his wife and two young children in Saratoga, New York. He lives in the most comfortable circumstances that a black man can hope for in the United States in 1841. However, his security is heartbreakingly stolen from him when he is kidnapped and sold into slavery in the Deep South. This film narrates Solomon’s twelve years spent in captivity and his attempts to remain physically alive, mentally sane, and always hopeful that one day he will be reunited with his family.

12 Years a Slave was powerful, emotional, and extremely difficult to watch. While I won’t discuss the film in too much depth, at the risk of spoiling it for those who have not yet seen it (although, if you haven’t, I suggest you go right now because it’s absolutely incredible), I want to talk about the impact the movie had on me personally. I’ve said this before, and I always feel an intense sense of guilt about it, but it has always been very difficult for me to imagine slavery in a literal sense. The entire institution seems so horrific and so unjust that I have a hard time accepting the fact that this brutality and inhumanity happened every second of every day to actual human beings in our not so distant past. This film thankfully managed to change my outlook. First of all, there were multitudes of extremely graphic scenes in which slaves were beaten, raped, and killed – several of which brought me to tears. The film did not shy away from uncomfortable subjects, but instead highlighted them. Besides physical terrors, there were also heart-wrenching emotional scenes, such as when Solomon first wakes up to find himself chained to the cement floor, or when a mother and her small children are all sold to separate owners. The children’s screams and begs for their mother had me bawling in the middle of the theater, but the only thing her new master had to say about it? “Oh, poor dear. Let’s get you something to eat, some rest, and your children will soon be forgotten.”

So yes, the movie was mentally taxing to watch. However, I feel that it is very important that we do so, because it carried such a critical message. First, it opened my eyes to the very real, very awful circumstances that African Americans were forced to endure during that time. Second, it unapologetically and explicitly presented how inhumane and sadistic much of the white population really was. And now, hopefully it will play a positive role in erasing racial divisions we still experience to this day. By receiving a glimpse of the past, we are forced to talk about it. Bringing subjects of slavery and race out into the open, rather than sweeping it all under the rug, is the only way that real improvement can be made.

Thoughts on Black Masculinity

It is nearly impossible for the black male to liberate himself without questioning sexism at its root. There is no universal concept of masculinity. As a result, a "masculine" black male is incomparable to a "masculine" white male. When one thinks of a masculine man, they often think of a man who provides for his family, has a job, and loves his children. However, this definition of masculinity can not be attributed to the black male. The black man was ripped of his masculinity in every form of slavery. He was not allowed to see his family, his children were taken away, he worked for very low wages, therefore, he was not a real "man". During slavery, the very man that put his foot up your ass was defined as a "real" man, and it was masculine for him to do this action. As a result of this universal concept of masculinity, black males had to define their own type of masculinity. Many brothas feel as though Burger King and other fast food restaurants aren't good enough. In an effort to define their masculinity, many brothas turn to gangs to attempt they gain a sense of respect. Therefore, many black males find themselves in a constant inner-struggle to define what masculinity truly means. I would definitely like to hear some feedback on these thoughts.

Politics of Respectability

                Politics of respectability refers to a set of rules of conduct in which members of a minority should adhere by. By behaving within societal norms, they hope to become accepted by the majority. Activists in the Civil Rights Movement were aware that to be seen as equals African Americans would have to demonstrate that they were the same as white Americans. During the 1950’s the ideal American was a white person married into a heterosexual family and held a respectable job. The NAACP and other black organizations kept this in mind when choosing their leaders and representatives. Rosa Parks was selected as the poster child of the Civil Rights Movement because she fit the criteria of a respectable American citizen.

                Several African Americans challenged the segregation of public transportation, but they were not chosen to represent the cause because they did not abide by the politics of respectability. One example is Claudette Colvin who also lived in Montgomery Alabama. She was a 15 year old member of the NAACP’s Youth Council who was arrested after refusing to give up her seat. Because she was pregnant outside of marriage she was bypassed as a potential poster child for the movement. An unwed pregnancy would not help improve the image of African Americans. Rosa Parks, however, was a married woman with a job and family. As an activist in the NAACP she was chosen to represent the movement toward desegregating the buses.

                That day marked a pivotal moment in the Civil Rights Movement as Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat because she was too tired. In her biography she explains:

People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in. I knew someone had to take the first step and I made up my mind not to move. Our mistreatment was just not right, and I was tired of it.

Rosa Parks stood her ground because sitting anywhere on the bus was her constitutional rights. Because she qualified as a respectable woman the NAACP took the case to court. Because she was a married woman whose lifestyle fit into society’s norms, white society could not question her morality. Therefore, the NAACP had a greater chance of success with the case.

                The politics of respectability played a major role in the Civil Rights Movement. But should it still be practiced today? A blog described it as “conforming to mainstream life and goals” in order to “disprove stereotypes” and “to be thought of as ‘model minorities’”.  Today’s society values individualism. Conforming to what is considered mainstream seems belittling to me. Fifty years ago it was necessary to show that you were equally human, but today I believe it is wrong to change in order to impress someone who looks down on you.

                Do you think the politics of respectability was necessary for the Civil Rights Movement to prevail? If so, do you think African Americans should continue to practice it to diminish racial stereotypes?

Is It OK to be "post-racial"?

Somehow, I feel like the way I've been living is wrong.  Up until this class, I've lived pretending as though my blackness has no further implication than the fact that I have more pigment than the people around me.  Being black has never been uncomfortable for me; I don't count the number of black people when I walk in a room or take due note of how many are in a given community. I've been the "token black kid" all of my life: I wen't to a predominately white, private grade school and now college.  It's never been a point of contention for me.  I've never encountered direct racism/oppression. And in many ways I've lived in a bubble of privilege.

But since we've been studying in class, I somehow feel naive.  I feel like my experience is definitely not reflective of that of the greater community.  I've never felt more ignorant.  The part of this class that has had the biggest impact on me is the discovery of the systemic obstacles to being black in the whole society.  It's incredible to me how, even though we have strode forward, the very legs with which we move are molded in racist ideology. It's incredible to me how slavery was considered part of the very essence of the democracy that we now cherish.  It's crazy how non-black expectations of a black person's behavior today are reflective of the very expectations held by racists of then. Though we say we moved past it, it definitely still lingers.

With that being said, I'm torn between "post-racial" to more "post-black". There's a book out by a guy named Toure called Who’s Afraid of Post-­Blackness? What It Means to Be Black Now where he explores this notion of there being no definition to being black.  There's no mold or box that one must fit into, but being black undoubtedly has an profound impact on who an individual is.  There's a part of the book where he writes about some art and interprets as saying "These people are our history, so honor them, but also, these people are history, so let’s move on".

And that's where my struggle is.  I agree, I honor my history and my blackness--thanks in large part to what we've learned in this class--but I also truly believe in moving on, moving forward, and letting the traditional notion of "blackness" go.  I think pretending like race doesn't exist is insane. But to me, being black still means little more than just "being-black".  

What do you guys think about coming to a point where race has no implication. We can't ignore that there are black and non-black people. But so what?

Nonviolence and Self-Defense

As we have discussed in class the last few days, there was an undisputable dynamic interplay within the Civil Rights movement between nonviolent tactics and self-defense. Some civil rights activists preached and practiced nonviolence from a moral perspective. They treated others the way they wanted to be treated, believing the maxim that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” But moral goodness was not necessarily the primary motive behind nonviolent protest within the civil rights movement. Instead, nonviolence and peaceful protest were utilized as a strategic and practical tactic to achieve the ultimate goal of racial equality.

As we have learned in our past few lectures, nonviolent protest is what helped garner national attention for the movement. According to Dr. Martin Luther King, “We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. Injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.” The rest of the world watched as the American South continually violated the law and harassed completely innocent African American citizens.  This, in turn, led to the rallied support of African Americans, and forced the government to step in in order to avoid ridicule from other countries. By not responding to racism with violence, African Americans highlighted their roles as victims, which helped lead to progressive change in society.

However, I personally believe that self-defense and nonviolence are not one and the same. These two dynamics worked in conjunction with, rather than in opposition to, one another. Without the utilization of both, the movement would not have made nearly as strong of an impact as it has. It was often armed defense, or at least the threat of force, that saved civil rights activists from attacks by white supremacists. Violence for the sake of violence was what they strived to avoid, but protecting oneself from being beaten and killed does not fit into that category. According to Robert Williams, a civil rights leader and president of the Monroe, North Carolina NAACP chapter, “a man cannot have human dignity if he allows himself to be abused… to allow his wife and children to be attacked, refusing to defend them on the basis that he’s so pious, so self-righteous, that it would demean his personality if he fought back.” He also argued “the stranglehold of oppression cannot not be loosened by a plea to the oppressor’s conscience” and that “social change in something as fundamental as racist oppression involves violence.”

Thus, due to continuous oppression by white supremacists and the actions of corrupt law enforcement officials, self-defense was frequently necessary. And though our Mrs. Applebaums and Mr. Woodruffs specifically valorized those that participated in nonviolent protest, I think those who used necessary armed force against their attackers deserve equal admiration.

The Use of Blackface

In the past week, I saw pictures of many different Halloween costumes on the internet and across social media. While I believe Halloween to be nothing but a fun-natured holiday, I was very disappointed to come across some of the costumes that I did this year, particularly those people donning blackface. One such picture gained national attention. Two Florida residents sparked outrage across the web when one posted a picture of the two friends dressed up as Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman for Halloween. The male dressed as Trayvon Martin donned blackface and a hoodie with fake blood spattered across the chest. Another instance receiving much negative attention was that of celebrity Juliane Hough using blackface to dress as a character from the movie “Orange is the New Black”. These and many other media posts were the source of criticism, hate, and disgust from people across the country in the past week. Today, a simple Google search will pull the images up along with countless articles discussing the Halloween-goer’s insensitivity and unintelligence. I do not wish to spur further negative feelings from these images, rather I would like to discuss the affects of using blackface on both those who use it and the African American community whose population is being portrayed.

            The use of blackface became popular in the 19^th century and was originally used in theatrical performances to portray slaves in America. In this scenario, white actors depicted slaves as humans who were content in their submission and lived perfectly happy lives on the Southern plantation they worked. It goes without saying that the original intent of blackface was to mock African Americans and cement what whites perceived to be their inferiority as beings. In our current day and age, I think that the use of blackface still bears similar connotations. I believe it suggests that the person using the makeup is superior to African Americans, especially if the attempt at looking black is for a costume. I think that one who dons blackface also makes the assumption, whether consciously or not, that they understand what it is like to be African American; that because they can “dress up” as a black person, they know what it is like to be black.  In my opinion, the use of blackface today is also in ignorance of the many hardships that African Americans still face today. It ignores the fact that there are still underlying prejudices towards black in our society today. It ignores the fact that reports say that 1 in every 3 black males will go to jail in their lifetime. In some cases one might think that it is also okay to use black face because we have reached racial equality. I think that because slavery has been outlawed, our schools are integrated, and we have an African American president, many Americans believe that we have reached equality, and for this reason it is safe to use blackface. I think this reflects ignorance and completely false judgment.

            As someone who is not African American it is easy for me to assume the affect that blackface might have on those who use it. I’d love to hear from you all what you think additional negative affects might be or even if you think the use of blackface can be justified today. I’d also be very interested in hearing how its use in modern society affects those who are African American or of African descent. 

Racial Etiquette: Emmett Till

                During the era of Jim Crow, racial etiquette was an additional utensil of segregation that if nor abided by in the South could cost a man his life or threaten that of his family. When in the presence of white people, blacks were expected to behave a certain way: expressing their manners, actions, attitudes, and words in a subordinate fashion. If a black person failed to adhere to the practices of racial etiquette, then they would most likely become the victims of violence, especially in the rural South. The murder of Emmett Till is evidence of the brutality of Jim Crow’s racial etiquette.

                In 1955 14 year old Emmett Till went to visit relatives in Mississippi. While visiting a store in Money, MS with cousins, it was reported that Emmett flirted with the white woman working there. He whistled at her in a flirtatious way breaching the rules of racial etiquette. A black man (or boy) was not supposed to flirt with a white woman; it was seen as disrespectful and threatened racial barriers. As a result of this violation, the woman’s husband Roy Bryant and his half-brother J.W. Milam kidnapped Emmett to teach him a lesson. Being from Chicago, Emmett was not aware of the severity of his situation. When Bryant and Milam later confessed their crime to Look magazine, they explained that originally they only intended to scare Emmett with a whipping; however, they could not scare him because his mind was filled with the “poisonous” notion of equality. So they killed him to make an example of him.

                Because Emmett Till did not comply with the rules of racial etiquette he was brutally beaten, shot in the head, and dumped in a river with an anchor around his neck. His body was so broken and bloated that the only way they were able to positively identify him was by his ring. Bryant and Milan were acquitted for the murder, and although they confessed to kidnapping Emmett they were not penalized by law. This demonstrates how hate crimes were institutionally sanctioned in the deep South.

                I cannot imagine living in a world where saying something or behaving in a certain way could lead to bodily harm or death. Fear for one’s life would make you constantly aware of your manners and actions when in the presence of white people. In a time when segregation was supposed to be abolished, the lingering Jim Crow kept the notion of white supremacy alive in the South.

 

Here is a link to the article where Bryant and Milan told what happened that night.

http://www.emmetttillmurder.com/Look%201956.htm